Composite Progressive Score: 98.68%
Crucial Progressive Score: 97.59%
How to Use This Page
This page shows votes for as long as the member has been in the House or since 1993, whichever came later. Green in the first column means that the member's vote was a progressive vote, red means it was an anti-progressive vote. The first of the three colored columns shows whether the member cast a Yes vote, a No vote, or was absent. Absences on close votes ONLY are counted as anti-progressive votes. The second column all in green displays what the progressive position on that vote was, either Yes or No. The third column shows if the progressives' cause won or lost on that particular vote. Green indicates a win, red a loss. The Roll Call Vote link in the far left column will take you to the official roll call in the House or Senate for that vote.
You have options at the top of the page to look at all votes or just ones that we define as crucial. Refer to the "What is a Progressive Score" explanation for an explanation of how votes qualify for the database and/or which votes are crucial votes. You can choose to display only these votes by clicking on 'Show Crucial Votes Only' at the top of the list.
For previous years, just click on the link for the year at the top of the detailed list of votes or click on "All" to see the member's entire legislative history in one page.
Show Crucial Votes Only | See All Ideologically Polarized Votes | ||||||||
Year: | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | All | |||||||
Roll Call Num Date | Description | How This Member Voted (Yes or No). Green = Progressive Vote | What the Progressive Position Is — Click here to see how we define this | Did the Progressive Side Win? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Roll Call 140 |
Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment Sine Die |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
Is the Schumer Constitutional Point of Order Against Article II Well Taken |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
Motion to Table the Schumer Point of Order |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
Motion to Proceed to Executive Session |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment Until Nov. 6, 2024 at 7:00 a.m. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment until 12 Noon May 1. 2024 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment Until April 30, 2024 at 12:00 Noon |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
Motion to Close the Doors |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
Is the Schumer Constitutional Point of Order Against Article I Well Taken |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
Motion to Table Schumer Point of Order |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment until April 30, 2024 until 12:00 Noon |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
Motion to Close the Doors |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
Motion to Table: Ramona Villagomez Manglona to be Judge for the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
Motion to Recess Until Monday, April 15, 2024 at 3pm |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Calendar No. 478, Ramona Villagomez Manglona |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
H.J.Res. 98 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
S.J.Res. 61 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
Confirmation: Robert J. White, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert J. White to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
Budd Motion to Table Schumer Amdt No. 1792 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
Hagerty Motion to Table Schumer Amdt No. 1793 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
Budd Motion to Table Schumer Amdt No. 1794 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt to H.R. 2882 with Johnson Amdt No. 1706 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
Motion to Concur in the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt to H.R. 2882 with Schmitt Amdt No. 1795 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2882 with Tuberville Amdt 1781 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2882 with Cruz Amdt No. 1804 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
Paul Motion to Refer the House Message to Accompany H.R. 2882 to the Committee on Appropriations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
Motion to Concur in the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt to H.R. 2882 with Lee Amdt No. 1722 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
Confirmation: Jose Javier Rodriguez, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
Confirmation: Eumi K. Lee, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eumi K. Lee to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
Confirmation: Edward Sunyol Kiel, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Edward Sunyol Kiel, of N.J., to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
Confirmation: Nicole G. Berner, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nicole G. Berner to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
Confirmation: Sean Patrick Maloney, of New York, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
Confirmation: Melissa R. DuBose, of Rhode Island, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Melissa R. DuBose to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
Confirmation: Sunil R. Harjani, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sunil R. Harjani to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
Confirmation: Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jasmine Hyejung Yoon to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
Hagerty Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 with an Amendment No. 1634 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
Scott (FL) Motion to Refer H.R. 4366 to the Committee on Appropriations with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
Schmitt Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 with an Amendment No. 1626 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
Lee Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 with an Amendment No. 1623 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
Motion to Table the Motion to Refer the House Message to Accompany H.R. 4366 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
Confirmation: Adrienne Jennings Noti, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
S. 3853 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adrienne Jennings Nori to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
Confirmation: Cathy Ann Harris, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cathy Ann Harris to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
Confirmation: Moshe Z. Marvit, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Moshe Z. Marvit to be a Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
Confirmation: Ronald T. Keohane, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ronald T. Keohane to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
Cruz Motion to Commit H.R. 7463 to the Committee on Appropriations with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
Paul Amdt. No. 1614 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
Shall the Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 38 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
Confirmation: Marjorie A. Rollinson, of Virginia, to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Marjorie A. Rollinson to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
Confirmation: Julie Simone Sneed, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie Simone Sneed to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
Confirmation: Hampton Y. Dellinger, of North Carolina, to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hampton Y. Dellinger to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
Confirmation: David Seymour Leibowitz, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Seymour Leibowitz to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
Confirmation: Jacqueline Becerra, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jacqueline Becerra to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
H.R. 815, as Amended |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: H.R. 815 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
Murray Amdt. No. 1388 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline During the Consideration of H.R. 815 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Murray Amdt. No. 1388 to H.R. 815 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
Motion to Table the Motion to Commit H.R. 815 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
Motion to Reconsider the Vote by which the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815 Was Not Agreed to |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
Confirmation: Amy M. Baggio, of Oregon, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy M. Baggio to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
Confirmation: Lisa W. Wang to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa W. Wang to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
Confirmation: Joseph Goffman, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph Goffman to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
Confirmation: Karoline Mehalchick, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karoline Mehalchick to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
Confirmation: Kirk Edward Sherriff, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
Confirmation: Joshua Paul Kolar, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joshua Paul Kolar to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kirk Edward Sherriff to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
Confirmation: Cristal C. Brisco, of Indiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cristal C. Brisco to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
Paul Amendment No. 1384 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
Shall the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 32) Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
Confirmation: S. Kato Crews, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: S. Kato Crews to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
Confirmation: Elizabeth H. Richard, of Virginia, to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
Confirmation: Sarah E. Hill, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sara E. Hill to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
Confirmation: Christopher Charles Fonzone, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Attorney General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher Charles Fonzone to be an Assistant Attorney General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
Confirmation: Martin O'Malley, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of the Social Security Administration |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
Confirmation: Brandon S. Long, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
Confirmation: Jerry Edwards, Jr., of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jerry Edwards, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
Motion to Waive the Rule 28 Point of Order Re: Section 7902 of the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1373 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
Confirmation: Harry Coker, Jr., of Kansas, to be National Cyber Director |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Harry Coker Jr. to be National Cyber Director |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
Confirmation: Richard E.N. Federico, of Kansas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Richard E. N. Federico to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
Confirmation: Nathalie Rayes, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nathalie Rayes, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth H. Richard to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
Confirmation: Loren L. AliKhan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Loren L. AliKhan to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
Confirmation: Shanlyn A.S. Park, of Hawaii, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shanlyn A.S. Park to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
Confirmation: Jamel Semper, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jamel Semper to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
Confirmation: Micah W.J. Smith, of Hawaii, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Micah W.J. Smith to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
Confirmation: Margaret M. Garnett, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Margaret M. Garnett to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
Confirmation: Jeffrey M. Bryan, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey M. Bryan to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
Paul Amdt. No. 1366 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
S.J.Res. 43 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
Motion to Table Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6126 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
Confirmation: Ana de Alba, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ana de Alba to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
Confirmation: Brandy R. McMillion, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
Confirmation: Monica Ramirez Almadani, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Monica Ramirez Almadani to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
S.J.Res. 38 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brandy R. McMillion to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
Confirmation: Charlotte A. Burrows, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charlotte A. Burrows to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
Confirmation: Ramon Ernesto Reyes, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ramon Ernesto Reyes, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
Confirmation: Julia E. Kobick, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julia E. Kobick to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
Confirmation: Kenly Kiya Kato, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenly Kiya Kato to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
Confirmation: Monica M. Bertagnolli, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Monica M. Bertagnolli to be Director of the National Institutes of Health |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
H.R. 662, as amended |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
Lee Amdt. No. 1121 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
Cruz Amdt. No. 1249 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
Paul Amdt. No. 1217 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
Budd Amdt. No. 1243 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
Cruz Amdt. No. 1296 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
Hawley Amdt. No. 1200 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
Confirmation: Jacob J. Lew, of New York, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the State of Israel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jacob J. Lew to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the State of Israel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
Confirmation: Matthew James Maddox, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew James Maddox to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
S.J. Res. 42 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
Braun Amdt. No. 1182 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
Lankford Amdt. No. 1232 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
Kennedy Amdt. No. 1354 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
Rubio Amdt. No. 1237 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
Vance Amdt. No. 1210 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
Confirmation: Jessica Looman, of Minnesota, to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica Looman to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
S.J.Res. 32 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
Confirmation: Karla Ann Gilbride, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karla Ann Gilbride to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
Confirmation: Julia Kathleen Munley, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julia Kathleen Munley to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
Confirmation: Jennifer L. Hall, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer L. Hill to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
Confirmation: Susan Kim DeClercq, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Kim DeClercq to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
Confirmation: Brendan Abell Hurson, of Maryland, to be to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brendan Abell Hurson to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
Confirmation: James C. O'Brien, of Nebraska, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (European and Eurasian Affairs) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: James C. O'Brien to be Assistant Secretary of State (European and Eurasian Affairs) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
Motion to Instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to Request the Attendance of Absentee Senators |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
Confirmation: Tara K. McGrath, of California, to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
Shall the Joint Resolution S.J.Res.24 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
Shall the Joint Resolution S.J.Res.9 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Suspend the rules under Rule V Re: Amdt No 1092 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
Confirmation: Rita F. Lin, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rita F. Lin to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
Confirmation: Vernon D. Oliver, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Vernon D. Oliver to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
Confirmation: Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
Confirmation: Tanya J. Bradsher, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tanya J. Bradsher to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
Confirmation: Anna M. Gomez, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anna M. Gomez to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
Confirmation: Adriana Debora Kugler, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adriana Debora Kugler to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
Confirmation: Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
Confirmation: Gwynne A. Wilcox, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gwynne A. Wilcox to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
Rubio Amdt. No. 523 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
Hawley Amdt. No. 1058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
Kennedy Amdt. No. 1034 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
Marshall Amdt. No. 874 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
Wicker Amdt. No. 1055 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
Cruz Amdt. No. 421 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
Cruz Amdt. No. 926 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
Confirmation: David M. Uhlmann, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
Hawley Amdt. No. 838 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
Kaine Amdt. No. 429 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
Confirmation: Rachel Bloomekatz, of Ohio, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rachel Bloomekatz to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: David M. Uhlmann to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
Confirmation: Kalpana Kotagal, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kalpana Kotagal to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
Confirmation: Myong J. Joun, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Myong J. Joun to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
Confirmation: Tiffany M. Cartwright, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tiffany M. Cartwright to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
Confirmation: Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
Confirmation: Rosemarie Hidalgo, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kymberly Kathryn Evanson to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rosemarie Hidalgo to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
H.J. Res. 44 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
Confirmation: Natasha C. Merle, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Natasha C. Merle to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
Shall the Joint Resolution Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
Confirmation: Julie Rikelman, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie Rikelman to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
Confirmation: Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nusrat Jahan Choudhury to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
Confirmation: Dale E. Ho, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
Confirmation: P. Casey Pitts, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dale E. Ho to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: P. Casey Pitts to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
Confirmation: Jared Bernstein, of Virginia, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
Confirmation: Hernan D. Vera, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jared Bernstein to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hernan D. Vera to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
Confirmation: Elizabeth Allen, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Allen to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
Confirmation: Molly R. Silfen, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Molly R. Silfen to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
Confirmation: Dilawar Syed, of California, to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dilawar Syed to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
Confirmation: David Crane, of New Jersey, to be Under Secretary of Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Crane to be Under Secretary of Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
H.R. 3746 |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
Kaine Amdt. No. 101 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
Lee Amdt. No. 98 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
Budd Amdt No. 134 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
Cotton Amdt. No. 106 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
Kennedy Amdt. No. 104 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
Sullivan Amdt. No. 125 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
Marshall Amdt. No. 110 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
Braun Amdt. No. 91 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
H.J.Res. 45 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 45 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
Confirmation: Darrel James Papillion, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
Confirmation: Nancy G. Abudu, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nancy G. Abudu to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
S. J. Res 18 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Darrel James Papillion to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
Confirmation: Jeremy C. Daniel, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeremy C. Daniel to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
H. J. Res. 42 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
Confirmation: Bradley N. Garcia, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bradley N. Garcia to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
S. J. Res. 24 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
S.J.Res. 23 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
Confirmation: Geeta Rao Gupta, of Virginia, to be Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
Confirmation: Colleen Joy Shogan, of Pennsylvania, to be Archivist of the United States |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
Confirmation: Glenna Laureen Wright-Gallo, of Nevada, to be Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Department of Education |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Glenna Laureen Wright-Gallo to be Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
Confirmation: L. Felice Gorordo, of Florida, to be U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: L. Felice Gorordo to be U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Geeta Rao Gupta to be Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Colleen Joy Shogan to be Archivist of the United States |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
Confirmation: LaShonda A. Hunt, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: LaShonda A. Hunt to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
Confirmation: Wesley L. Hsu, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
S.J.Res. 9 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
H.J.Res. 39 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wesley L. Hsu to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
Confirmation: Orelia Eleta Merchant, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Orelia Eleta Merchant to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
Confirmation: Robert Kirsch, of New Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
Confirmation: Michael Farbiarz, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert Kirsch to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Farbiarz to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
Confirmation: Anthony Devos Johnstone, of Montana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anthony Devos Johnstone to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 4 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
S. J. Res. 11 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
Confirmation: Joshua David Jacobs, of Washington, to be Under Secretary for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
Sullivan Amdt. No. 83 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
Van Hollen Amdt. No. 85 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 81 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
Motion to Proceed to S.J.Res. 10 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
Hagerty Amdt. No. 72, as modified |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
Paul Amdt. No. 79 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
Lee Amdt. No. 80 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
Confirmation: Amy Lefkowitz Solomon, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Lefkowitz Solomon to be an Assistant Attorney General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
Confirmation: Radha Iyengar Plumb, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Radha Iyengar Plumb to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
Confirmation: Laura Taylor-Kale, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
Confirmation: Richard R. Verma, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
H.J. Res. 7 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
H.J. Res. 27 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
S. 316 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 13 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
Sullivan Amdt. No. 33 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
Cruz Amdt. No. 9 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
Ricketts Amdt. No. 30 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
Johnson Amdt. No. 11 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Re: S. 316 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
Risch Amdt. No. 43 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
Rubio Amdt. No. 4 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
Graham Amdt No. 14 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
Confirmation: Gordon P. Gallagher, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
Motion to Proceed to S. 316 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
Confirmation: Jessica G.L. Clarke, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 316 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica G. L. Clarke to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Laura Taylor-Kale to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
Confirmation: Ravi Chaudhary, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ravi Chaudhary to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
Confirmation: Eric M. Garcetti, of California, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of India |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric M. Garcetti, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of India |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
Confirmation: Brent Neiman, of Illinois, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brent Neiman to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
Confirmation: Maria Araujo Kahn, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
Confirmation: James Edward Simmons, Jr., of California, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
Confirmation: Daniel I. Werfel, of the District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
H.J. Res. 26 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel I. Werfel to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
Confirmation: Patrice H. Kunesh, of Minnesota, to be Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Patrice H. Kunesh to be Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
Confirmation: Arun Subramanian, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Arun Subramanian to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
Confirmation: Andrew G. Schopler, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew G. Schopler to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
Confirmation: Robert Stewart Ballou, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert Stewart Ballou to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
Confirmation: Jonathan James Canada Grey, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gordon P. Gallagher to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
Confirmation: Colleen R. Lawless, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Edward Simmons, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
H.J. Res. 30 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jonathan James Canada Grey to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Colleen R. Lawless to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
Confirmation: Margaret R. Guzman, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Margaret R. Guzman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
Confirmation: Araceli Martinez-Olguin, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Araceli Martinez-Olguin to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
Confirmation: Jamal N. Whitehead, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jamal N. Whitehead to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
Confirmation: Jamar K. Walker, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jamar K. Walker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Maria Araujo Kahn to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
Confirmation: Lester Martinez-Lopez, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
Confirmation: Daniel J. Calabretta, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lester Martinez Lopez to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
Confirmation: Ana C. Reyes, of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel J. Calabretta to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ana C. Reyes to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
Confirmation: Adrienne C. Nelson, of Oregon, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adrienne C. Nelson to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
Confirmation: Matthew L. Garcia, of New Mexico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew L. Garcia to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
Confirmation: Lindsay C. Jenkins, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lindsay C. Jenkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
Confirmation: Gina R. Mendez-Miro, of Puerto Rico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gina R. Mendez-Miro to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
Confirmation: Cindy K. Chung. of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cindy K. Chung to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
Confirmation: DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: DeAndrea Gist Benjamin to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
Confirmation: Joseph Lee Falk, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
Confirmation: Brendan Owens, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment No. 4 with an Amendment No. 6552 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
Cassidy Amendment No. 6558 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
Braun Amendment No. 6569 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
Lankford Amendment No. 6577 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
Lee Amendment No. 6563 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
Johnson Amendment No. 6559 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
Johnson Amendment No. 6555 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
Paul Amendment No. 6561 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: the House Amendment to Senate Amendment No. 4 with an Amendment (Amendment No. 6552) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
Confirmation: Franklin R. Parker, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
Confirmation: Agnes Schaefer, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany H.R. 2617 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
Confirmation: Robert Harley Shriver III, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
Confirmation: Martin J. Gruenberg, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1437, with Lee amendment No. 6451, as modified |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1437 with the Scott (FL) Amendment No. 6540 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 7776 with the Johnson Amendment No. 6526 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 7776 with the Manchin Amendment No. 6513 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
Confirmation: Francisco O. Mora, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Organization of American States |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
S.J.Res. 60 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
Confirmation: Jay Curtis Shambaugh, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
Confirmation: Dana M. Douglas, of Louisiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
Confirmation: Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, of Delaware, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dana M. Douglas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
Confirmation: Jeffery Paul Hopkins, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
Confirmation: Jerry W. Blackwell, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffery Paul Hopkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
Confirmation: John Frank Murphy, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
Confirmation: Kai N. Scott, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kai N. Scott to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
Confirmation: Mia Roberts Perez, of Pennsylvania, to U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
Confirmation: Kelley Brisbon Hodge, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
Confirmation: Frances Kay Behm, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kelley Brisbon Hodge to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Frances Kay Behm to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
Confirmation: Doris L. Pryor, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
H.Con.Res. 119 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
Sullivan Amdt. No. 6503 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Doris L. Pryor, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jerry W. Blackwell to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
Confirmation: Anne M. Nardacci, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
Confirmation: Camille L. Velez-Rive, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anne M. Nardacci to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Camille L. Velez-Rive to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
H.R. 8404, as amended |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
Rubio Amdt. No. 6493 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
Lankford Amdt. No. 6496 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
Lee Amdt. No. 6482 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amdt. No. 6487 to H.R. 8404 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 8404 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 8404 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
S.J.Res. 63 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
Confirmation: Maria del R. Antongiorgi-Jordan, of Puerto Rico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Maria del R. Antongiorgi-Jordan to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
Upon Reconsideration, Confirmation: Lisa M. Gomez, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
H.R. 6833, as amended |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
Upon Reconsideration, Confirmation: Arianna J. Freeman, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6833 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
Confirmation: Arati Prabhakar, of California, to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
Confirmation: Amanda Bennett, of the District of Columbia, to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Arati Prabhakar to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amanda Bennett to be Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
Resolution of Ratification to Treaty Doc No 117-1, the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Treaty Doc 117-1, Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
Confirmation: Florence Y. Pan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Florence Y. Pan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
Confirmation: Sarah A.L. Merriam, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah A. L. Merriam to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
Confirmation: Lara E. Montecalvo, of Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lara E. Montecalvo to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
Confirmation: Arianna J. Freeman, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Arianna J. Freeman to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
Confirmation: Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of Washington, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Salvador Mendoza, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
Confirmation: Andre B. Mathis, of Tennessee, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andre B. Mathis to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
Confirmation: John Z. Lee, of Illinois, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Z. Lee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
H.R. 5376, As Amended |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
Warner Amendment No. 5488 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
Thune Amendment No.5472 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
Hagerty Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
Graham Amendment No. 5487 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
Sullivan Amendment No. 5435 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
Rubio Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
Blackburn Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry with Instructions. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
Hoeven Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
Cruz Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
Cruz Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amendment No. 5194, Insulin |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
Kennedy Amendment No. 5385 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cruz Amendment No. 5265 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
Cruz Amendment No. 5263 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
Scott (SC) Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
Shelby Amendment No. 5418 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
Lee Amendment No. 5316 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
Rubio Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
Kennedy Amendment No. 5387 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
Collins Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
Grassley Amendment No. 5421 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Capito Amendment 5383 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
Marshall Amendment No. 5389 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
Scott (FL) Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
Crapo Amendment No. 5404 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
Motion to Waive Section 313 of the CBA of 1974 Re: Tester Amendment No. 5480 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
Lankford Amendment No. 5384 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
Capito Amendment No. 5382 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
Barrasso Amendment No. 5409 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline RE: Hassan Amendment No. 5469 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
Graham Amendment No. 5301 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5376 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
Confirmation: Constance J. Milstein, of New York, to be Ambassador of The United States of America to the Republic of Malta. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
Motion to Discharge: David M. Uhlmann to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from the Committee on Environment and Public Works |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
Confirmation: Roopali H. Desai, of Arizona, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
S.J.Res.55 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S.3373 with Amendment No. 5185 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S.3373 with Amendment No. 5186 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Wilson Hanes, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Wilson Hanes to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Pressman, of New York, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Hungary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 3373 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4346 with Amendment No. 5135, ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 5135 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13, 111th Congress, as amended by S. Con. Res. 11, 114th Congress re: Amendment No. 5135 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4346 with Amdt. No. 5135 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shereef M. Elnahal, of New Jersey, to be Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Reuben E. Brigety II, of Florida, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of South Africa ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.Con.Res. 43 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Bernadette M. Meehan, of New York, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of Chile ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gregory Brian Williams, of Delaware, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gregory Brian Williams to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany H.R. 4346 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julianna Michelle Childs, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nancy L. Maldonado, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nancy L. Maldonado to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nina Nin-Yuen Wang, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nina Nin-Yuen Wang to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julianna Michelle Childs to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Owen Edward Herrnstadt to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael S. Barr, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael S. Barr to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven M. Dettelbach, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House amendment to S. 2938 with an amendment (Amdt. No. 5099) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table: Amdt. No. 5100 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 2938 with Amendment No. 5099 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Jessica G. L. Clarke to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Hernan D. Vera, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California, from the Committee on the Judiciary. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mary T. Boyle, of Maryland, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Arianna J. Freeman, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Motion (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 2938 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ana Isabel de Alba, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mary T. Boyle to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ana Isabel de Alba to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alan M. Leventhal, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Denmark. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.Con.Res. 41 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Samuel R. Bagenstos, of Michigan, to be General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert Steven Huie, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amy Loyd, of New Mexico, to be an Assistant Secretary of Education for Career, Technical, and Adult Education. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Todd M. Harper, of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nina Morrison, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lisa M. Gomez, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalanda H. Baker, of Texas, to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact, Department of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth L. Wainstein, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 46 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 350 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cathy Ann Harris, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Loyd to be Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa M. Gomez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Henry Christopher Frey, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Henry Christopher Frey to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sandra L. Thompson, of Maryland, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sandra L. Thompson to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charlotte N. Sweeney, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Evelyn Padin, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nina Morrison to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charlotte N. Sweeney to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Evelyn Padin to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dara Lindenbaum, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dara Lindenbaum to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephanie Dawkins Davis, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephanie Dawkins Davis to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4008 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Trina L. Thompson, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Schoff Watson, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Schoff Watson to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Barbara A. Leaf to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Louise Rochon, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sunshine Suzanne Sykes to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Trina L. Thompson to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Louise Rochon to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Susan Tsui Grundmann, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Mary T. Boyle to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julia Ruth Gordon, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julia Ruth Gordon to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to S. 4132 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alvaro M. Bedoya, of Maryland, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alvaro M. Bedoya to be a Federal Trade Commissioner ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On the Motion (Motion to Discharge: Charlotte N. Sweeney to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Upon Reconsideration ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, of California, to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Asmeret Asefaw Berhe to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On the Motion (Scott (SC) Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On the Motion (Toomey Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On the Motion (Capito Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On the Motion (Lankford Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Motion (Johnson Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On the Motion (Cotton Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On the Motion (Lee Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On the Motion (Cruz Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On the Motion (Barrasso Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 39 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth de Leon Bhargava, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth de Leon Bhargava to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joshua Frost, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joshua Frost to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On the Motion (Motion to Insist on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4521, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Chair to Appoint Conferees ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Insist on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4521, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Chair to Appoint Conferees ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 41 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sherilyn Peace Garnett, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sherilyn Peace Garnett to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lael Brainard to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James C. O'Brien, of Nebraska, to be Head of the Office of Sanctions Coordination, with the rank of Ambassador ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4373 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Executive Calendar No. 860 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Julia Ruth Gordon to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from the committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Georgette Castner, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cathy Ann Harris to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cathy Ann Harris to be a Member of the Merit System Protection Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Tsui Grundmann to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Weil to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: January Contreras, of Arizona, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: January Contreras to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Judith DelZoppo Pryor, of Ohio, to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Judith DelZoppo Pryor to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Alvaro M. Bedoya to be a Federal Trade Commissioner from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: C.S. Eliot Kang, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Security and Non-Proliferation) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nani A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: C.S. Eliot Kang to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Security and Non-Proliferation) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nani A. Coloretti to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 4521 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Schumer Amdt. No. 5002 to H.R. 4521 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrew M. Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alison J. Nathan, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anne Rachel Traum, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cristina D. Silva, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John H. Chun, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Hector Gonzalez, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julie Rebecca Rubin, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4521 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Victoria Marie Calvert, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4521 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alison J. Nathan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Fred. W. Slaughter, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jacqueline Scott Corley, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew M. Luger to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anne Rachel Traum to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cristina D. Silva to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Georgette Castner to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah Elizabeth Geraghty to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John H. Chun to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hector Gonzalez to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie Rebecca Rubin to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Victoria Marie Calvert to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ruth Bermudez Montenegro to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Fred W. Slaughter to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jacqueline Scott Corley to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 37 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalanda D. Young, of Louisiana, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shalanda D. Young, of Louisiana, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On the Motion (Senate Concurs in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2471 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 4983 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 4990 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 4989 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: S.J. Res. 35 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sect. 3101 (b) of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th Congress) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 38 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 32 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3755. ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6617 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 4930 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt No. 4927 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 4929 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6617 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert McKinnon Califf, of North Carolina, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert McKinnon Califf to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Max Vekich, of Washington, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Max Vekich to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Samuel R. Bagenstos to be General Counsel of the Department of HHS ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Neil Harvey MacBride, of Virginia, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury ) |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Leonard Philip Stark, of Delaware, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Reta Jo Lewis, of Georgia, to be President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Scott A. Nathan, of Massachusetts, to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chantale Yokmin Wong, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Director of the Asian Development Bank ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lisa A. Carty, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amy Gutmann, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Germany ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Loren L. AliKhan, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John P. Howard III, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Donald Walker Tunnage, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ebony M. Scott, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Leonard Philip Stark to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Reta Jo Lewis to be President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chantale Yokmin Wong to be U.S. Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the Rank of Ambassador ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Scott A. Nathan to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa A. Carty to be Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Gutmann to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Germany ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Loren L. AliKhan to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John P. Howard III to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sean C. Staples, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenia Seoane Lopez, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Donald Walker Tunnage to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ebony M. Scott to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rupa Ranga Puttagunta, of the District of Columbia, to be Associate Judge if the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sean C. Staples to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenia Seoane Lopez to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rupa Ranga Puttagunta to be Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Augustin Ruiz to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Augustin Ruiz to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charles Esque Fleming, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charles Esque Fleming to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Bridget Meehan Brennan, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bridget Meehan Brennan to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Holly A. Thomas, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair stand as the Judgement of the Senate ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 3436 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gabriel P. Sanchez, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amitabha Bose, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amitabha Bose to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alan Davidson, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alan Davidson to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anne A. Witkowsky, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anne A. Witkowsky to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Holly A. Thomas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gabriel P. Sanchez to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Japan ) |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mary Katherine Dimke, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mary Katherine Dimke to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Katherine Marie Menendez, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Katherine Marie Menendez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer L. Thurston, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer L. Thurston to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalina D. Kumar, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shalina D. Kumar to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jane M. Beckering, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jane M. Beckering to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Herrera Urias, of New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Herrera Urias to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jinsook Ohta, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jinsook Ohta to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Linda Lopez, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Linda Lopez to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Atul Atmaram Gawande, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Atul Atmaram Gawande to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Holly A. Thomas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Samantha D. Elliott, of New Hampshire, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Sung, of Oregon, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res 33 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 33 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Samantha D. Elliott to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lucy Haeran Koh, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Sung to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lucy Haeran Koh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 610 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 610 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 29 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael D. Smith, of Virginia, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael D. Smith to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rachael S. Rollins, of Massachusetts, to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rachael S. Rollins to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 31 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chris Magnus, of Arizona, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chris Magnus to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Deirdre Hamilton, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Mediation Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Deirdre Hamilton to be a Member of the National Mediation Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jessica Rosenworcel, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Federal Comunications Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica Rosenworcel to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6119 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On the Amendment (Marshall Amdt. No. 4868 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Rachael S. Rollins to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian Eddie Nelson, of California, to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Re: Reed Amdt. No. 3867 As Modified to H.R. 4350 ) |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brain Eddie Nelson to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jonathan Kanter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Graham Scott Steele, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Graham Scott Steele to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert Luis Santos, of Texas, to be Director of the Census ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert Luis Santos to be Director of the Census ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Jennifer Sung to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rajesh D. Nayak, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jeffrey M. Prieto, of California, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be a Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rajesh D. Nayak to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey M. Prieto to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Isobel Coleman to be a Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Toby J. Heytens, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Beth Robinson, of Vermont, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Toby J. Heytens, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Beth Robinson, of Vermont, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Prelogar, of Indiana, to be Solicitor General of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Hampton Y. Dellinger, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christopher H. Schroeder, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Matthew G. Olsen, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Omar Antonio Williams, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Prelogar to be Solicitor General of the United States ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hampton Y. Dellinger to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher H. Schroeder to be Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew G. Olsen to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Omar Antonio Williams to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarala Vidya Nagala, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael S. Nachmanoff, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 434 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Patricia Tolliver Giles, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Karen McGlashan Williams, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jia M. Cobb, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarala Vidya Nagala to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael S. Nachmanoff to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Patricia Tolliver Giles to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karen McGlashan Williams to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jia M. Cobb to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Myrna Perez, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Douglas L. Parker, of West Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Tana Lin, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Myrna Perez to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Douglas L. Parker to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tana Lin to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 2747 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon, of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Brian Eddie Nelson to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christine P. O'Hearn, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christine P. O'Hearn to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gustavo A. Gelpi, of Puerto Rico, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gustavo A. Gelpi to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 1301 with an Amendment (Amdt. No. 3847) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 1301 with an Amendment (Amdt. No. 3847) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education, from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarah A.L. Merriam, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah A. L. Merriam to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lauren J. King, of Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lauren J. King to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jonathan Eugene Meyer, of Ohio, to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 1301 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Tracy Stone-Manning, of Montana, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tracy Stone-Manning to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rohit Chopra, of the District of Columbia, to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rohit Chopra to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 5305, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 3832 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On the Amendment (Marshall Amdt. No. 3831 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 3833 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert T. Anderson, of Washington, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jonathan Eugene Meyer to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert T. Anderson to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jessica Lewis, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Todd D. Robinson, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mary Catherine Phee, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Monica P. Medina, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Karen Erika Donfried, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5305 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica Lewis to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Todd D. Robinson to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mary Catherine Phee to be an Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Monica P. Medina to be Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karen Erika Donfried, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Florence Y. Pan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Florence Y. Pan to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lily Lawrence Batchelder, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lily Lawrence Batchelder to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Rohit Chopra to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Margaret Irene Strickland, of New Mexico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Margaret Irene Strickland to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Veronica S. Rossman, of Colorado, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Veronica S. Rossman to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Angel Kelley, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Angel Kelley to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David G. Estudillo, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David G. Estudillo to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James Richard Kvaal, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Richard Kvaal to be Under Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S. 1 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 14, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3815 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sec. 904 of the C.B.A. Re: Cruz Amdt. No. 3681 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On the Amendment (Sullivan Amdt. No. 3626 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 3650 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On the Amendment (Hyde-Smith Amdt. No. 3568 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On the Amendment (Hagerty Amdt. No. 3742 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 3331 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3141 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 3758 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt. No. 3243 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 3781 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On the Amendment (Blackburn Amdt. No. 3062 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 3680 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On the Amendment (Moran Amdt. No. 3795 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On the Amendment (Romney Amdt. No. 3652 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 3150 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 3792 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On the Amendment (Ernst Amdt. No. 3115 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 3128 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On the Amendment (Boozman Amdt. No. 3103 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 3569 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 3251 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On the Amendment (Shelby Amdt. No. 3293 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On the Amendment (Scott (SC) Amdt. No. 3073 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On the Amendment (Cramer Amdt. No. 3105 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 3365 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 3099 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On the Amendment (Lummis Amdt. No. 3104 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On the Amendment (Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 3317 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On the Amendment (Carper Amdt. No. 3330 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. Con. Res. 14 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3684, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: H.R. 3684 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On the Amendment (Sinema Amdt. No. 2137, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sinema Amdt. No. 2137 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eunice C. Lee, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sinema Amdt. No. 2137 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eunice C. Lee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On the Amendment (Schumer Amdt. No. 2570 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 2279 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 2338 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 2449 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 2233 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On the Amendment (Wicker Amdt. No. 2146 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 2245 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On the Amendment (Duckworth Amdt. No. 2140 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 2180 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, of California, to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ur Mendoza Jaddou to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3684 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Leahy Amdt. No. 2123 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3684 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David M. Prouty, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David M. Prouty to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gwynne A. Wilcox, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gwynne A. Wilcox to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Tracy Stone-Manning to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Todd Sunhwae Kim, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Todd Sunhwae Kim to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3684 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Bonnie D. Jenkins, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bonnie D. Jenkins to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Ann Abruzzo, of New York, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt No. 2121, As Modified ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth Allen Polite, Jr., of Louisiana, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Ann Abruzzo to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth Allen Polite, Jr. to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Tiffany P. Cunningham, of Illinois, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tiffany P. Cunningham to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: J. Nellie Liang, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: J. Nellie Liang to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Seema Nanda, of Virginia, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jocelyn Samuels, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Seema Nanda to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jocelyn Samuels to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Jennifer Ann Abruzzo to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julie A. Su, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie A. Su to be Deputy Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Uzra Zeya, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary of State (Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Uzra Zeya to be an Under Secretary of State (Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, of Illinois, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Candace Jackson-Akiwumi to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Deborah L. Boardman, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Deborah L. Boardman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 2093 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kiran Arjandas Ahuja, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kiran Arjandas Ahuja, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christopher Charles Fonzone, of Pennsylvania, to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher Charles Fonzone to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John K. Tien, of Georgia, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John K. Tien to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lydia Kay Griggsby, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Radhika Fox, of California, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lydia Kay Griggsby to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Radhika Fox to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lina M. Khan, of New York, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lina M. Khan to be a Federal Trade Commissioner ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 7 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 1260, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On the Amendment (Amdt. No. 1502 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 1502 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 1858 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Regina M. Rodriguez, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Regina M. Rodriguez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julien Xavier Neals, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julien Xavier Neals to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3233 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Rubio Amdt. No. 1802 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Schumer Amdt. No. 1502 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On the Amendment (Sasse Amdt. No. 2023 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 1771 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1929 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 1710 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 2014 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On the Amendment (Sullivan Amdt. No. 1911 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1891 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 1565 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1975 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kristen M. Clarke, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kristen M. Clarke to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 1518 ) |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 1523 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 1547 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On the Amendment (Tillis Amdt. No. 1517 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 13 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 13 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge the Nomination of Kristen M. Clarke to be an Assistant Attorney General from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amber Faye McReynolds, of Colorado, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amber Faye McReynolds to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ronald Stroman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ronald Stroman to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ronald Stroman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ronald Stroman to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 15 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cynthia Minette Marten, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cynthia Minette Marten to be Deputy Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrea Joan Palm, of Wisconsin, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrea Joan Palm to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1472 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 14 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Samantha Power to be Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Colin Hackett Kahl, of California, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Colin Hackett Kahl to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Janet Garvin McCabe, of Indiana, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Janet Garvin McCabe to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On the Amendment (Blackburn Amdt. No. 1458 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1425 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 1456 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Colin Hackett Kahl to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from the Committee on Armed Services ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Vanita Gupta, of Virginia, to be Associate Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gary Gensler to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge the Nomination of Vanita Gupta from the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brenda Mallory, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brenda Mallory to be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gary Gensler to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Wendy Ruth Sherman, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of State ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wendy Ruth Sherman to be Deputy Secretary of State ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 1411 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: H.R. 1799 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On the Amendment (Rubio Amdt. No. 1405 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 1401 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rachel Leland Levine, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rachel Leland Levine to be an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of Florida, to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps and Surgeon General of the Public Health Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Vivek Hallegere Murthy to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health Service ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalanda D. Young, of Louisiana, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shalanda D. Young to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Martin Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Martin Joseph Walsh to be Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Xavier Becerra, of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Xavier Becerra, of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Debra Anne Haaland, of New Mexico, to be Secretary of the Interior ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Debra Anne Haaland to be Secretary of the Interior ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge the Nomination of Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services from the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Stanley Regan, of North Carolina, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Stanley Regan to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Merrick Brian Garland, of Maryland, to be Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Marcia Louise Fudge, of Ohio, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Merrick Brian Garland to be Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Marcia Louise Fudge to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1319, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Foreign Relations ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Amendment (Moran Amdt. No. 1154 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 902 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1331 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 968 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Amendment (Cassidy Amdt. No. 1162 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On the Motion (Cornyn Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with Instructions ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1381 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On the Motion (Scott (FL) Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with Instructions ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On the Motion (Kennedy Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship with Instructions ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On the Motion (Motions to Commit to H.R. 1319 to Eleven Committees Considered En Bloc ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tuberville Amdt. No. 1386 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Amendment (Romney Amdt. No. 1364 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 969 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lankford Amdt. No. 1031 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Amendment (Blackburn Amdt. No. 996 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On the Motion (Cotton Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 1395 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Motion (Capito Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On the Amendment (Young Amdt. No. 1383 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 1014 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 944 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 1010 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On the Motion (Grassley Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Amendment (Cassidy Amdt. No. 1161 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tester Amdt. No. 1197 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On the Amendment (Graham Amdt. No. 1369 As Modified ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On the Amendment (Hassan Amdt. No. 1344 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On the Amendment (Rubio Amdt. No. 1026 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1378 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On the Amendment (Scott (SC) Amdt. No. 1030 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Collins Amdt. No. 1242 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 1092 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Motion to Adjourn (Motion to Adjourn Until 10:00 A.M. Tomorrow ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 972 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1319 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Miguel A. Cardona, of Connecticut, to be Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Miguel A. Cardona to be Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Mulhern Granholm, of Michigan, to be Secretary of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Mulhern Granholm to be Secretary of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
Guilty or Not Guilty (Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On the Motion (Shall It Be In Order to Consider and Debate Any Motion to Subpoena Witnesses or Documents? ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On the Motion (Is Former President Donald John Trump Subject to a Court of Impeachment for Acts Committed While President? ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 5, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 889 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On the Amendment (Schumer Amdt. No. 888 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Amendment (Rubio Amdt. No. 651 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sullivan Amdt. No. 461 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 253 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On the Amendment (Romney Amdt No. 803 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt No. 887 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 55 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 837 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On the Amendment (Capito Amdt. No. 655 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt No. 872 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cruz Amdt. No. 811 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 770 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 782 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 483 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cotton Amdt No. 66 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 821 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 542 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 678 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 1 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Grassley Amdt. No. 91 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On the Amendment (Braun Amdt No. 833 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ernst Amdt. No. 132 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 687 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sasse Amdt. No. 192 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 553 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On the Amendment (Young Amdt No. 54 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On the Amendment (Blunt Amdt. No. 48 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Amendment (Scott (SC) Amdt. No. 53 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. Con. Res. 5 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table: Is the Point of Order Well Taken? ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On the Objection (Shall the Objection Submitted by the Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Hawley, Be Sustained? ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
On the Objection (Shall the Objection Submitted by the Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, and Others Be Sustained? ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eric J. Soskin, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric J. Soskin to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Eric J. Soskin, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Eric J. Soskin, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Beth Harwell, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Beth Harwell to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric J. Soskin to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Chase Johnson to be Inspector General, Federal Communications Commission ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thompson Michael Dietz, of New Jersey, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Thompson Michael Dietz to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Zachary N. Somers, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Zachary N. Somers to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charles Edward Atchley, Jr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charles Edward Atchley, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joseph Dawson III, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph Dawson III to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Katherine A. Crytzer, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Katherine A. Crytzer to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thomas L. Kirsch II, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Thomas L. Kirsch II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 78 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 77 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sean J. Cooksey, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Allen Dickerson, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nathan A. Simington, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen Sidney Schwartz, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nathan A. Simington to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen Sidney Schwartz to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Liam P. Hardy, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Liam P. Hardy to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christopher Waller, of Minnesota, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 2689 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kathryn C. Davis, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher Waller to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kathryn C. Davis to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kyle Hauptman, of Maine, to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kyle Hauptman to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: J. Philip Calabrese, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: J. Philip Calabrese to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Taylor B. McNeel, of Mississippi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Taylor B. McNeel to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kathryn Kimball Mizelle to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen A. Vaden, of Tennessee, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen A. Vaden, of Tennessee, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Toby Crouse, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Toby Crouse, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Judy Shelton to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Benjamin Joel Beaton, of Kentucky, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Benjamin Joel Beaton to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kristi Haskins Johnson, of Mississippi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kristi Haskins Johnson to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Aileen Mercedes Cannon, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Aileen Mercedes Cannon to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James Ray Knepp II, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Ray Knepp II to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On the Motion (Motion to Recess ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit (Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit the Barrett Nomination to the Committee on the Judiciary ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Indefinitely Postpone the Barrett Nomination ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On the Motion (Motion to Open the Doors ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On the Motion (Motion to Recess ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Jay Newman, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Jay Newman to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 178 with Senate Amendment SA 2652 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Michael Newman to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed to S. 4675 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 2680 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 90 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4653 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Tillis Amdt. No. 2673 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 178 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jocelyn Samuels, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Keith E. Sonderling, of Florida, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Keith E. Sonderling to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrea R. Lucas, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrea R. Lucas, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Edward Hulvey Meyers, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Edward Hulvey Meyers to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Iain D. Johnston, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Franklin Ulyses Valderrama, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Iain D. Johnston to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen P. McGlynn, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David W. Dugan, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen P. McGlynn to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David W. Dugan to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Todd Wallace Robinson to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 178 with Amendment No. 2652 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thomas T. Cullen, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Hala Y. Jarbou, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Thomas T. Cullen to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hala Y. Jarbou to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christy Criswell Wiegand to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Peter Cronan, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Peter Cronan, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mark Wesley Menezes, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mark Wesley Menezes to be Deputy Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S.178 ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Derek Kan, of California, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lauren McGarity McFerran, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lauren McGarity McFerran to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Marvin Kaplan, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Marvin Kaplan to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Derek Kan to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dana T. Wade, of Washington D.C., to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Cleveland Joseph, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dana T. Wade to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Cleveland Joseph to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: William Scott Hardy, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William Scott Hardy to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 4049, As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: S. 4049 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1788 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 2252 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Russell Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Russell Vought to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 2011 ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 3985 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cory T. Wilson, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cory T. Wilson to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Justin Reed Walker, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Justin Reed Walker to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 1617 ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Pack, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Pack to be Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Drew B. Tipton, of Texas to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Drew B. Tipton to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James H. Anderson, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James H. Anderson to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian D. Miller, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian D. Miller to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Leonard Badalamenti, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Leonard Badalamenti to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John L. Ratcliffe, of Texas, to be Director of National Intelligence ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John F. Heil III, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anna M. Manasco, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John F. Heil III to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anna M. Manasco to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James E. Trainor III, of Texas, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James E. Trainor III to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Scott H. Rash, of AZ, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Scott H. Rash to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6172, As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1583 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Troy D. Edgar, of California, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Troy D. Edgar to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian D. Montgomery to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 68 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On the Amendment (Sasse Amdt No.1577 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 748 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 748 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No.1558 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No.1559 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James P. Danly, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James P. Danly to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 76 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion To Proceed To: S.J. Res. 56 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1407, As Modified, to S.2657 ) |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Katharine MacGregor, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 311 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 3275 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 68 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Sullivan Amdt. No. 1319 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Rubio Amdt. No. 1320 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Cotton Amdt. No. 1305 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 1301 ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 68 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Philip M. Halpern, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Matthew Thomas Schelp, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joshua M. Kindred, of Alaska, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Philip M. Halpern to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew Thomas Schelp to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joshua M. Kindred to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrew Lynn Brasher, of Alabama, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On the Cloture Motion ( Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew Lynn Brasher to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
Guilty or Not Guilty (Article II, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald John Trump ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
Guilty or Not Guilty (Article I, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald John Trump ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On the Resolution (S. Res. 488 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Van Hollen Amdt. No. 1298 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1297 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1296 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1295 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On the Motion (Shall It Be In Order To Consider And Debate Any Motion To Subpoena Witnesses Or Documents ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On the Resolution (S. Res. 483 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer for Van Hollen Amdt. No. 1294 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1293 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1292 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1291 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1290 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1289 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1288 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No.1287 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1286 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1285 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1284 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Paul J. Ray, of Tennessee, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Paul J. Ray to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eleni Maria Roumel, of Maryland, to be a Judge for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On the Cloture Motion (Cloture Motion: Michael George DeSombre to be Ambassador of the United States to the Kingdom of Thailand ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eleni Maria Roumel to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lewis J. Liman, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert J. Colville, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jodi W. Dishman, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anuraag Singhal, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jodi W. Dishman to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Mack Traynor to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anuraag Singhal to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen Hahn, of Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Joseph Sullivan of Maryland, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Russian Federation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Aurelia Skipwith, of Indiana, to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen Hahn to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Joseph Sullivan to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Russian Federation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lawrence VanDyke, of Nevada, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lawrence VanDyke to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Patrick J. Bumatay, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Patrick J. Bumatay to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sherri A. Lydon, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Richard Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Douglas Russell Cole, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarah E. Pitlyk, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John L. Sinatra, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sherri A. Lydon to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Richard Ernest Myers II to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Douglas Russell Cole to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah E. Pitlyk to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John L. Sinatra, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dan R. Brouillette, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dan Brouillette to be Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Adrian Zuckerman, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Romania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adrian Zuckerman to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Romania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Barbara Lagoa, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Barbara Lagoa to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert J. Luck, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert J. Luck to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven J. Menashi, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Steven J. Menashi to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chad F. Wolf, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chad Wolf to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lee Philip Rudofsky, of Arkansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Danielle J. Hunsaker, of Oregon, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lee Philip Rudofsky to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Danielle J. Hunsaker to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Austin Tapp to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2740 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1209 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 52 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Justin Reed Walker, of Kentucky, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Justin Reed Walker to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 50 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrew P. Bremberg, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew P. Bremberg to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 54 pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 53 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charles R. Eskridge III, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Charles R. Eskridge III to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eugene Scalia, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John E. Hyten to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and for Appointment in the U.S. Air Force to the grade of General while Assigned. ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eugene Scalia, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: General John E. Hyten for Appointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On the Resolution (S. Res. 336 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On the Resolution (S. Res. 335 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On the Resolution (S. Res. 333 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 54 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Fabian Black, of North Dakota, to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Daniel Habib Jorjani, of Kentucky, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republics of Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Fabian Black to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Habib Jorjani to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph Cella to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republics of Fiji, Kiribati, and the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2740 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian Callanan, of New Jersey, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brent James McIntosh, of Michigan, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert A. Destro, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian Callanan to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brent James McIntosh to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert A. Destro, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth A. Howery, of Texas, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Sweden. ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth A. Howery to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Sweden ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Rakolta, Jr., of Michigan, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Arab Emirates ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Rakolta, Jr., to be Ambassador of the United States to the United Arab Emirates ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven D. Grimberg, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ada E. Brown, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michelle Bowman to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: James Byrne, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dale Cabaniss, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Byrne to be Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dale Cabaniss to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Darling, of Texas, to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Darling to be Commissioner on Children Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kelly Craft to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations and Representative to the Security Council ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: William Shaw Stickman IV, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jason K. Pulliam, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brantley Starr, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jeffrey Vincent Brown, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mark T. Pittman, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kelly Craft to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations and Representative to the Security Council ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William Shaw Stickman IV to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jason K. Pulliam to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Steven D. Grimberg to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brantley Starr, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffery Vincent Brown, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mark T. Pittman to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sean D. Jordan, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sean D. Jordan to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Peter D. Welte, of North Dakota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael T. Liburdi, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter D. Welte to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael T. Liburdi to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the joint resolution S.J. Res. 38 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 37 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 36 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian C. Buescher, of Nebraska, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Wendy Williams Berger, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian C. Buescher to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wendy Williams Berger to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen M. Dickson, of Georgia, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 928 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen M. Dickson to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Donald R. Tapia, of Arizona, to be Ambassador of the United States to Jamaica ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Lynda Blanchard, of Alabama, to be Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Slovenia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Clifton L. Corker, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Donald R. Tapia to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Jamaica ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lynda Blanchard to be Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Slovenia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Clifton L. Corker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Peter Joseph Phipps, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter Joseph Phipps, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Peter C. Wright, of Michigan, to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter C. Wright to be Assistant Administrator of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: John P. Pallasch, of Kentucky, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert L. King, of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John P. Pallasch to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert L. King to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation T. Kent Wetherell II, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Damon Ray Leichty to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: T. Kent Wetherell II to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel Aaron Bress, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Aaron Bress to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 883 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3401 ) |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Joint Resolution (En Bloc: S.J.Res. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 38 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 36 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Greg Gerard Guidry, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James David Cain, Jr., of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Allen Cothrel Winsor, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Greg Gerard Guidry to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James David Cain, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Allen Cothrel Winsor to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Sean Cairncross, of Minnesota, to be Chief Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sean Cairncross to be Chief Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 20 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas P. Barber, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Rodney Smith, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Corey Landon Maze, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jean-Paul Boulee, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Thomas P. Barber, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Rodney Smith, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Corey Landon Maze, of Alabama, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard A. Hertling, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Rossie David Alston, Jr., of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Richard A. Hertling, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Rossie Alston, Jr., of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Susan Combs, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Interior ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Combs to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Schenker, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Heath P. Tarbert to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Heath P. Tarbert to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Schenker to be an Assistant Secretary of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew M. Saul, of New York, to be Commissioner of Social Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Andrew M. Saul to be Commissioner of Social Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kenneth D. Bell, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Carl J. Nichols, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen R. Clark, Sr., of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Howard C. Nielson, Jr., of Utah, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth D. Bell to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Carl J. Nichols to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen R. Clark, Sr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Howard C. Nielson, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel P. Collins, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel P. Collins to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey A. Rosen, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Wendy Vitter, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey A. Rosen to be Deputy Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wendy Vitter, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kenneth Kiyul Lee, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth Kiyul Lee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael J. Truncale, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael J. Truncale to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael H. Park, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael H. Park to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Janet Dhillon, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Janet Dhillon to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph F. Bianco, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph F. Bianco to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 7 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States Notwithstanding ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joshua Wolson, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Joshua Wolson to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew Lynn Brasher, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Andrew Lynn Brasher to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation J. Campbell Barker, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture J. Campbell Barker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Gordon Hartogensis, of Connecticut, to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Gordon Hartogensis to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation William Cooper, of Maryland, to be General Counsel, Department of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of William Cooper, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Steven Morales, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David Steven Morales, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Holly A. Brady, of Indiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Holly A. Brady to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Cheryl Marie Stanton, of South Carolina, to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cheryl Marie Stanton to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Patrick R. Wyrick, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Patrick Wyrick, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel Desmond Domenico, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark Anthony Calabria, of Virginia, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Mark Anthony Calabria to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Roy Kalman Altman, of Florida, to be U. S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Roy Kalman Altman, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to S. Res. 50 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 268 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Amdt. No. 201 to H.R. 268 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Bridget S. Bade, of Arizona, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Bridget S. Bade, of Arizona, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 46 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 7 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Inhofe Amdt. No. 194 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation William Beach, of Kansas, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William Beach to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Neomi J. Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Neomi J. Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D. C. Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Paul B. Matey, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Paul Matey, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circut Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation John Fleming, of Louisiana, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew Wheeler, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael J. Desmond, of California, to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Michael J. Desmond to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Eric D. Miller, of Washington, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Eric D. Miller, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: The Motion to Proceed to S. 311 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: William Pelham Barr to be Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 187 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 162 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lankford Amdt. No. 158 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 1 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 65, As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 65 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. 1 ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Schumer Amdt. No. 6 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion Invoke Cloture on the Shelby Amdt. No. 5 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 109 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.J. Res. 2 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 2 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 2 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany H.R. 695 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amendment #4109 Division III ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amendment #4109 Division II ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Amendment (Kennedy Amendmeny #4109 Divison I ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 54, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 4098 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On the Amendment (Young Amdt. No. 4080 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed S.J. Res. 54 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 64 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jonathan A. Kobes, of South Dakota, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Justin George Muzinich, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Justin George Muzinich, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kathleen Laura Kraninger, of Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Bernard L. McNamee, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bernard L. McNamee, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kathleen Laura Kraninger to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jonathan A. Kobes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S. J. Res 54 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Thomas Alvin Farr, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Karen Dunn Kelley, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Karen Dunn Kelley, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen Alexander Vaden, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Stephen Alexander Vaden, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 65 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thomas S. Kleeh, of West Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eli Jeremy Richardson, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mark Saalfield Norris, Sr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Joseph Juneau, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Liles Clifton Burke, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: William M. Ray II, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Richard J. Sullivan, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Second Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Ryan Douglas Nelson, of Idaho, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David James Porter, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eric S. Dreiband, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric S. Dreiband, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey Bossert Clark, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffery Bossert Clark to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 63 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Peter A. Feldman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter A. Feldman, to be a Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission (Term of Seven Years) ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Peter A. Feldman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter A. Feldman to be a Commisioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jackie Wolcott, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the International Atomic Energy Agency and to the Vienna Office of the United Nations ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Charles P. Rettig, of California, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charles P. Rettig to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Charles J. Williams, of Iowa, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Dominic W. Lanza, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Elad L. Roisman, of Maine, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elad L. Roisman to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Charles Barnes Goodwin, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Isabel Marie Keenan Patelunas, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph H. Hunt, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard Clarida, of Connecticut, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Richard Clarida to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Lynn A. Johnson, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Lynn A. Johnson to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Shelby Amdt. No. 3695 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 3967 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Julius Ness Richardson, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julius Ness Richardson, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Cruz Amdt. No. 3402 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 3464 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Britt Cagle Grant, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Britt Cagle Grant to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Robert L. Wilkie, of North Carolina, to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Ryan Wesley Bounds to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew S. Oldham, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Andrew S. Oldham, of Texas, to U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Randal Quarles to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James Blew, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Department of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Paul C. Ney, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Paul C. Ney, Jr., to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian Allen Benczkowski, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian Benczkowski, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark Jeremy Bennett, of Hawaii, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3074 ) |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Kennedy Amdt. No. 3383 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 3021 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge H.R. 3 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 2700 to Amdt. No. 2282, As Modified, to H.R. 5515 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 2366 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Reed Amdt. No. 2842 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Annemarie Carney Axon, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama ) |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James Randolph Evans, of Georgia, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Luxembourg ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James Randolph Evans to be Ambassador of the United States to Luxembourg ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the FDIC ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Dana Baiocco, of Ohio, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dana Baiocco to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Gina Haspel, of Kentucky, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gina Haspel to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Mitchell Zais, of South Carolina, to be Deputy Secretary of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 52 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 52 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation John B. Nalbandian, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joel M. Carson III, of New Mexico, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on John B. Nalbandian, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Joel M. Carson III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Michael B. Brennan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard Grenell, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Secretary of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Secretary of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James Bridenstine, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Carlos G. Muniz, of Florida, to be General Counsel, Department of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James Bridenstine to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 140 with an Amendment ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 57 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 57 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 140 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on John W. Broomes, of Kansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Kansas ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew Wheeler, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Patrick Pizzella, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Patrick Pizzella, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation John F. Ring, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: John F. Ring to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Discharge S. J. Res. 54 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Kevin K. McAleenan to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 2155, Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: S. 2155 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2155 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 2151 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Crapo Amendment No. 2151, As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2155 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Tilman Eugene Self III to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Russell Vought, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On the Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Russell Vought to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth L. Branch, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Elizabeth L. Branch, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1959 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1958 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1948 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1955 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892 with an Amendment (SA 1930) ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to the Senate Amdt. to H.R. 1892 with an Amendment (SA 1930) ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 695 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Ryan Stras, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David Ryan Stras to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 2311 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel Dale Brownback, of Kansas, to be Ambassasador at Large for International Religious Freedom ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Samuel Dale Brownback to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Alex Michael Azar II, of Indiana, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Alex Michael Azar to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment with Further Amendment ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 195 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Refer H.R. 195 to the Committee on Appropriations with Instructions ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 195 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 139 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to S. 139 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 139 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1370 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On the Motion (Motion to Recede from the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1 and Concur with Further Amendment ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budget Resolutions Re: The Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jennifer Gillian Newstead, of New York, to be Legal Adviser of the Department of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Owen West, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation J. Paul Compton, Jr., of Alabama, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James C. Ho, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James C. Ho to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Don R. Willett, of Texas, to be a Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Don R. Willett to be a Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Leonard Steven Grasz, of Nebraska, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Leonard Steven Grasz to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 123 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph Balash, of Alaska, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On the Motion (Booker Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On the Motion (Stabenow Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On the Motion (King Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On the Motion (Motion to Insist on the Senate Amdt. to H.R. 1, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Chair to Appoint Conferees ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kirstjen Nielsen, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kirstjen Nielsen, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On the Amendment (Merkley Amdt. No. 1856 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the CBA Re: Cantwell Amdt. No. 1717 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 1852 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On the Motion (Menendez Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Brown Amdt. No. 1854 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 1720 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On the Motion to Adjourn (Schumer Motion to Adjourn Until Noon Monday ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On the Motion (Cardin Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On the Motion (Baldwin Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On the Motion (Nelson Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On the Motion (Stabenow Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On the Motion (King Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On the Motion (Casey Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Motion (Brown Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On the Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Gregory G. Katsas, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Gregory G. Katsas, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph Otting, of Nevada, to be Comptroller of the Currency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Joseph Otting to be Comptroller of the Currency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David G. Zatezalo, of West Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David G. Zatezalo, of West Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Steven Gill Bradbury, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Steven Gill Bradbury to be General Counsel of the Department of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation William L. Wehrum, of Delaware, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William L. Wehrum to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Nomination (Confrimation Peter B. Robb, of Vermont, to be Gener Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Peter B. Robb, of Vermont, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Steven Andrew Engel, of D.C., to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Steven Andrew Engel to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephanos Bibas, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Stephanos Bibas, of Pennsylvania, to be U. S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Allison H. Eid, of Colorado, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Allison H. Eid, of Colorado, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Joan Louise Larsen, of Michigan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Joan Louise Larsen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Trevor N. McFadden, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Scott L. Palk, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Scott L. Palk, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 111 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res. 71 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Amendment (Enzi Amdt. No. 1561 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Amendment (Cantwell Amdt. No. 1301 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1429 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1428 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 1553 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 1277 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1430 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Amendment (Kaine Amdt. No. 1249 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sec. 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Cardin Amdt. No. 1375 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 1378 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305 (b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Heitkamp Amdt. No. 1228 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On the Amendment (Baldwin Amdt. No. 1139 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On the Amendment (Warner Amdt. No. 1138 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Cantwell Amdt. No. 1141 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Amendment (Capito Amdt. No. 1393 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1302 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 1120 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Amendment (Nelson Amdt. No. 1150 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1119 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 1144 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H. Con. Res. 71 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Joel Trachtenberg, of Virginia, to be a Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Callista L. Gingrich, of Virginia, to be Ambassador of the U.S. to the Holy See ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Callista L. Gingrich to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Holy See ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Lee Francis Cissna, of Maryland, to be Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Lee Francis Cissna to be Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Randal Quarles to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Eric D. Hargan, of Illinois, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Eric D. Hargan to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Ajit Vardaraj Pai, of Kansas, to be a Member of the F.C.C. ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ajit Varadaraj Pai to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Makan Delrahim, of California, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation William J. Emanuel, of California, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of William J. Emanuel, of California, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Noel J. Francisco, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Noel J. Francisco, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Pamela Hughes Patenaude, of New Hampshire, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 871 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin Allen Hassett, of Massachusetts, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Dan Brouillette, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Marvin Kaplan, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Marvin Kaplan to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin Christopher Newsom, of Alabama, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kevin Christopher Newsom, of Alabama, to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 667 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On the Motion (Murray Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, with Instructions ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On the Amendment (Heller Amdt. No. 502 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On the Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 with Instructions ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Strange Amdt. No. 389 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On the Motion (Casey Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 with Instructions ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On the Motion (Donnelly Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 with Instructions ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 271 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No 270 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1628 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Bernhardt to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation John Kenneth Bush, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John Kenneth Bush, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: William Francis Hagerty IV, of Tennessee, to be Ambassador of the United States to Japan ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Neomi Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Neomi Rao to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Marshall Billingslea, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Marshall Billingslea to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S. J. Res. 42 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On the Nomination (Courtney Elwood, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Amul R. Thapar, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Amul R. Thapar to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Terry Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of China ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey A. Rosen, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeffrey A. Rosen to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Robert Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robert Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H. J. Res. 36 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Scott Gottlieb, of Connecticut, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture On the Nomination of Scott Gottlieb to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Heather Wilson, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of the Air Force ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 66 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of H.J. Res. 66 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation R. Alexander Acosta, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of R. Alexander Acosta, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Motion to Adjourn (Schumer Motion to Adjourn Until 5:00 P.M. ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Motion to Postpone (Motion to Postpone the Motion to Invoke Cloture, Upon Reconsideration, of the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch Until a Time Certain ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Vote By Which the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch Was Not Invoked ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Neil Gorsuch ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 43 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 43 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 67 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Friedman, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Israel ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture re Nomination of David Friedman to be Ambassador to Israel ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 34 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 83 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 69 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Lt. Gen. Herbert R. McMaster, Jr. to be Lieutenant General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel Coats, of Indiana, to be Director of National Intelligence ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Daniel Coats, of Indiana, to be Director of National Intelligence ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 42 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Seema Verma, of Indiana, to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Seema Verma to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 57 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 58 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 44 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 37 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H. J. Res. 37 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James Richard Perry, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James Richard Perry to be Secretary of Energy ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ben Carson to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Ryan Zinke, of Montana, to be Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Nomination of Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Wilbur L., Ross, Jr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Commerce ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Commerce ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Scott Pruitt, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On the Motion (Motion to Extend Debate Re: Pruitt Nomination ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture re Nomination of Scott Pruitt, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Mick Mulvaney, of South Carolina, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mick Mulvaney to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 40 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Linda E. McMahon, of Connecticut, to be Administrator of the Small Business Administration ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven T. Mnuchin, of California, to be Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Steven T. Mnuchin, of California, to be Secretary of the Treasury. ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas Price, of Georgia, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Nomination of Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, to be Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On the Motion (Shall the Senator be Permitted to Proceed in Order? ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, to be Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elisabeth Prince DeVos, of Michigan, to be Secretary of Education ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Elisabeth DeVos to be Secretary of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 41 ) |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 41 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Thomas Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to consider the Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.J.Res. 38 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 38 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Elisabeth DeVos to be Secretary of Education ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On the Motion (Shall the Journal Stand Approved to Date? ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider the Vote on Confirmation of Rex W. Tillerson ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rex W. Tillerson, of Texas, to be Secretary of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Rex W. Tillerson, of Texas, to be Secretary of State ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 84 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 3 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Brown Amdt. No. 86 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hatch Amdt. No. 180 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Gillibrand Amdt. No. 82 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Fischer Amdt. No. 184 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 188 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On the Amendment (Klobuchar Amdt. No. 178 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alexander Amdt. No. 174 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Menendez Amdt. No. 83 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hatch Amdt. No. 179 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Barrasso Amdt. No. 181 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Casey Amdt. No. 61 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Tester Amdt. No. 104 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Flake Amdt. No. 176 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the CBA Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 81 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Heller Amdt. No. 167 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Manchin Amdt. No. 64 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Barrasso Amdt. No. 173 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: King Amdt. No. 60 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Nelson Amdt. No. 13 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive the CBA Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 19 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Flake Amdt. No. 52 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Germaneness Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 20 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. re: Kaine Amdt. No. 8 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. Con. Res. 3 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 612 ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 612 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3110 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 5325 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 5082 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 39 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5293 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5293 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5293 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 764 with Further Amendment (Amdt. No. 4935) ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 4936 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment with an Amendment to S. 764 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2193 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3100 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Motion (Motion to Lay Before the Senate a Message From the House to Accompany S. 764 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 2328 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: the Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to S. 2328 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment with Amendment No. 4865 to S. 2328 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 2328 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Johnson Amdt. No. 4859 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Commit H.R. 2578 with Instructions (Amdt. No. 4858) ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4787 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Commit with Instructions ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4720 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4749 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Commit H.R. 2578 with instructions (Amdt. No. 4750) ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4751 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Motion (Shaheen Motion to Instruct Conferees to S. 524 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2943 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McCain Amdt. No. 4229 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Reed Amdt. No. 4549 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Motion (Sullivan Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 2577 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Motion (Nelson Motion to Instruct Conferees (Ebola/Zika Funding) Re: H.R. 2577 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 4369 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Laura S. H. Holgate, of Virginia, to be Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 28 ) |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 88 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 3897 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On the Amendment (Blunt Amdt. No. 3900 As Modified and Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 3900 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Blunt Amdt. No. 3900 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Cornyn Amdt. No. 3899 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Nelson Amdt. No. 3898 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Paula Xinis, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 3888 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On the Amendment (Cardin Amdt. No. 3871 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 3878 to Amdt. No. 3801 to H.R. 2028 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 3801 to H.R. 2028 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On the Cloture Motion ( Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Alexander Amdt. No. 3801, Upon Reconsideration ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Alexander Amdt. No. 3801 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On the Amendment (Merkley Amdt. No. 3812 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 3813 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On the Amendment (Coats Amdt. No. 3814 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt. No. 3811 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Paul Amdt. No. 3787 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 3312 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On the Amendment (Boozman Amdt. No. 3311 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 3210 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On the Amendment (Isakson Amdt. No. 3202 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On the Amendment (Schumer Amdt. No. 3483 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Amendment (Thune Amdt. No. 3512 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment with an Amendment ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation John B. King, of New York, to be Secretary of Education ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Shaheen Amdt. No. 3345 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 3395 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 644 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 644 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2012 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Murkowski Amdt No. 2953 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt. No. 3125 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 3176 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On the Amendment (Sullivan Amdt. No. 2996 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 3030 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 3115 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3023 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 2965 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 2982 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Veto Message to Accompany S.J. Res. 22 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4038 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Wilhelmina Marie Wright, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2232 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the First House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2029 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Alissa M. Starzak, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Army ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3762 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Murphy Amdt. No. 2918 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 2919 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: McConnell Amdt. No. 2916 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 2915 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On the Amendment (Coats Amdt. No. 2888 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Bennet Amdt. No. 2907 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Manchin Amdt. No. 2908 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Grassley Amdt. No. 2914 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Feinstein Amdt. No. 2910 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cornyn Amdt. No. 2912 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Shaheen Amdt. No. 2892 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Casey Amdt. No. 2893 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On the Amendment (Collins Amdt. No. 2885 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Brown Amdt. No. 2883 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 2875 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Murray Amdt. No. 2876 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 23 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 24 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On the Motion (Wicker Motion to Instruct Conferees (Re: Combination Length Limitations) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2685 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 22 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 22 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1140 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 754, As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 2552, As Further Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2612 As Further Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 2587, As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Amendment (Heller Amdt. No. 2548, As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 2621, As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 2564 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Burr Amdt. No. 2716 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2146 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2028 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2029 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Cochran Amdt. No. 2669 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2685, Upon Reconsideration ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 36 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2640 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2656 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2640 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2640 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1881 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 22 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 2266 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Amendment (Kirk Amdt. No. 2327 ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kirk Amdt. No. 2327 ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2328 ) |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 22 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 22 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Amendment (Casey Amdt. No. 2242 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 2100 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Amendment (Burr Amdt. No. 2247 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 2243 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 2177 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 2180 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Amendment (Murphy Amdt. No. 2241 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Amendment (Kirk Amdt. No. 2161 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On the Amendment (Heitkamp Amdt. No. 2171 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 2176 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2093 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt No. 2162 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On the Amendment (Booker Amdt. No. 2169 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Amendment (Scott Amdt. No. 2132 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On the Motion (Reed Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1735 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Insist on the Senate Amendment, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Presiding Officer to Appoint Conferees Re: H.R. 1735 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 2110 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On the Amendment (Alexander Amdt. No. 2139 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On the Amendment (Tester Amdt. No. 2107 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On the Amendment (Hirono Amdt. No. 2109 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2146 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2146 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2685 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1735 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 1735 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McCain Amdt. No. 1463 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Amendment (Gillibrand Amdt. No. 1578 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On the Amendment (Ernst Amdt. No. 1549 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Matthew T. McGuire, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Burr Amdt. No. 1569 As Modified ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Kirk Amdt. No. 1986 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Amendment (Reed Amdt. No. 1521 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Amendment (Tillis Amdt. No. 1506 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Amendment (Shaheen Amdt. No. 1494 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 1522 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 2048 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 1449 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 1450 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 1451 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1357 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2048 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1314 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 1314 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 1221 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On the Amendment (Flake Amdt. No. 1243 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 1251 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On the Amendment (Warren Amdt. No. 1327 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 1299 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 1411 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Hatch Amdt. No. 1221 to H.R. 1314 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 1242 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1314 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1314 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany S. Con. Res. 11 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed Re: Conference Report to Accompany S. Con. Res. 11 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 1147 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 1150 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Loretta E. Lynch, of New York, to be Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Loretta Lynch, to be Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 290 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 1127 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 301 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On the Motion (Stabenow Motion to Instruct (Medicare Cuts) RE: S.Con.Res. 11 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Motion (Mikulski Motion to Instruct (Equal Pay) Re: S.Con.Res. 11 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On the Motion (Fischer Motion to Instruct (Equal Pay) re: S.Con.Res. 11 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On the Motion (Warren Motion to Instruct (Student Loans) re: S.Con.Res. 11 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Motion (Motion to Disagree in the House Amendment, Agree to the Request for a Conference, and Authorize the Presiding Officer to Appoint Conferees. ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: H.R. 2 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cardin Amdt. No. 1119 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Murray Amdt. No. 1117 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1116 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Bennet Amdt. No. 1115 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 1114 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On the Concurrent Resolution (S.Con.Res. 11 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Amendment (Kaine Amdt. No. 1047 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On the Amendment (Cardin Amdt. No. 367 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 855 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On the Amendment (Warren Amdt. No. 1094 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On the Amendment (Vitter Amdt. No. 811 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Cotton Amdt. No. 664 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 659 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On the Amendment (Reed Amdt. No. 919 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 750 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On the Amendment (McCain Amdt. No. 360 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Nelson Amdt. No 944 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On the Amendment (Kirk Amdt. No. 1038 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 1063 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On the Amendment (Flake Amdt. No. 665 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 951 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On the Amendment (Gardner Amdt. No. 443 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On the Amendment (Merkley Amdt. No. 842 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 836 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On the Amendment (Bennet Amdt. No. 1014 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On the Amendment (Thune Amdt. No. 607 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 689 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On the Amendment (Stabenow Amdt. No. 1072 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 966 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 649 As Modified ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt No. 867 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On the Amendment (Murkowski Amdt. No. 838 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On the Amendment (Vitter Amdt. No. 515 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 817 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On the Amendment (Blunt Amdt. No. 928 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On the Amendment (Scott Amdt. No. 692 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 828 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On the Amendment (Baldwin Amdt. No. 432 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 798 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Rubio Amdt. No. 423 As Modified ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Admt. No. 1012 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On the Amendment (Stabenow Amdt. No. 523 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 881 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 801 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Bennet Amdt. No. 601 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 777 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 347 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On the Amendment (Warren Amdt. No. 652 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 471 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 498 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On the Amendment (Mikulski Amdt. No. 362 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 409 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 323 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.178 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amdt. to S. 178 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amdt. to S.178 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.178 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amendment to S.178 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Bill S.1 Pass, Over the Objections of the President ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.8 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J.Res.8 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the House Message to Accompany H.R. 240 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Insist on Senate Amdt., Agree to a Conference, and Authorize Appointment of Conferees Re: H.R. 240 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.534 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 240, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On the Amendment (Cochran Amdt. No. 255 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Amdt. No. 258 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 240 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On Passage of the Bill (S.1 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 178 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 141 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On the Amendment (Booker Amdt. No. 155 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 77 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On the Amendment (Burr Amdt. No. 92 As Modified ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On the Amendment (Daines Admt. No. 246 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On the Amendment (Gillibrand Amdt. No. 48 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On the Amendment (Heitkamp Amdt. No. 133 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On the Amendment (Murkowski Amdt. No. 166 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 115 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 132 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt. No. 148 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On the Amendment (Moran Amdt. No. 73 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No 15 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 23 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On the Amendment (Peters Amdt. No. 70 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On the Amendment (Cardin Amdt. No. 75 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amdt. No. 2 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Reed Amdt. No. 74 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Leahy Amdt. No. 30 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions made by individuals who make more than $1 million from development of Canadian ?tar sands? oil fields This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions made by individuals who make more than $1 million from development of Canadian ?tar sands? oil fields. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would carry Canada?s tar sands oil fields to the south-central United States, where it could be sold on world markets. The project was seen as important to the continued development of Canada?s tar sands oil industry. Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment targeted individuals and companies that held leases or otherwise profited from the tar sands oil boom. Under the terms of the amendment, anyone who made more than $1 million would be required to disclose campaign contributions larger than $200. However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it. Sen. Whitehouse argued that his amendment would provide a ?beam of daylight? into the secretive world of campaign finance. With so many wealthy individuals spending large sums to influence U.S. elections, American voters deserved to know who was bankrolling their elected representatives? campaigns, he said. ?It is a little bit unusual to some that the opening measure of the new Republican majority would be a project that advantages a foreign oil company,? Sen. Whitehouse said. ?This is the kind of information the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly said citizens are entitled to know in order to make appropriate decisions, and in our democracy we should put our citizens first.? No lawmakers spoke out in favor of the motion to table Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment. However, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) criticized a nearly identical amendment offered by Sen. Whitehouse just a few days later. She argued that the topic of campaign finance was unrelated to the underlying bill, and therefore an inappropriate topic for the current debate. Federal law already required disclosure of contributions to official political campaigns, she noted. ?This amendment is not relevant to this debate,? Sen. Murkowski said. ?To the extent it is legal for a person or a company to make a campaign contribution, Federal and State election laws require public disclosure of those campaign contributions.? The Senate agreed to table Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment by a vote of 52-43. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 43 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions made by individuals who make more than $1 million from development of Canadian ?tar sands? oil fields. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment imposing an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on oil transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment imposing an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on oil transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the pipeline. Most oil is subject to an 8-cent-per-barrel federal excise tax that funds clean-up efforts in the case of a spill. However, because oil from Canada?s ?tar sands? is actually a mixture of soil and bitumen ? it is extracted through strip mining rather than drilling ? it was exempt from this tax under existing federal law. Sen. Carper?s amendment sought to close this ?loophole? by imposing an equivalent ?fee? on the Keystone XL?s oil. The revenue from this fee would be put in a federal land and water conservation fund. However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Carper?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it. Sen. Carper argued that it would be unfair ? both to U.S. oil producers and to taxpayers ? to allow a Canadian company to transport its oil across the American heartland without paying either the excise tax or an equivalent fee. The fee would prevent the Canadian oil from getting an unfair advantage while also funding efforts to protect the environment, he said. ?The land and water conservation fund is also established not just to provide the revenues for national parks,? Sen. Carper said. ?The land and water conservation fund was also established to help protect rivers, lakes, and critical habitat for wildlife, areas that may be impacted by the construction of this pipeline or a possible spill from this pipeline.? Supporters of the motion to table Sen. Carper?s amendment did not explain their opposition to the proposal; in fact, earlier in the debate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed support for a policy that would subject the Keystone XL?s oil to the regular excise tax. However, she argued, rather than adding the policy to the underlying bill, the Senate should give the House of Representatives a chance to add it, since the Constitution requires revenue-raising legislation to originate in the lower chamber. ?The problem that we have is that as we work to enact legislation to update our laws, we have to make sure it is consistent with the Constitution, which requires revenue-raising measures to originate in the House,? Sen. Murkowski said. The Senate agreed to the motion to table Sen. Carper?s amendment by a vote of 57-38. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 38 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment imposing an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on oil transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment delaying construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until federal law had been changed to ensure the oil it carries is taxed like other petroleum products This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment delaying construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until federal law had been changed to ensure the oil it carries is taxed like other petroleum products. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the pipeline. Most oil is subject to an 8-cent-per-barrel federal excise tax that funds clean-up efforts in the case of a spill. However, because oil from Canada?s ?tar sands? is actually a mixture of soil and bitumen ? it is extracted through strip mining rather than drilling ? it was exempt from this tax under existing federal law. Sen. Markey?s amendment would have made approval of the pipeline contingent on a change in that policy ? ensuring the oil carried through the Keystone XL was subject to the tax. However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Markey?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it. Supporters of Sen. Markey?s amendment argued that the existing ?loophole? in federal tax law would put American oil producers at a disadvantage. It would also leave taxpayers on the hook for any spills on the Keystone XL pipeline, they said, since the company would not have to contribute to the clean-up fund. ?If spilled into the environment, oil produced from tar sands is just as damaging as oil produced by other means, if not more so,? Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said in 2014. ?Surely producers of oil from tar sands should help contribute to the costs of cleaning up these spills ? just like producers of other oil must do.? Supporters of the motion to table did not explain their opposition to Sen. Markey?s amendment; in fact, earlier in the debate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed support for a policy that would subject the Keystone XL?s oil to the tax. However, she argued, rather than adding the policy to the underlying bill, the Senate should give the House of Representatives a chance to add it, since the Constitution requires revenue-raising legislation to originate in the lower chamber. ?This is important because right now we have a legitimate but unintended loophole on the books, and it is also a matter of fairness because conventional oil pays into the trust fund,? Sen. Murkowski said, adding that lawmakers should correct the issue ?legitimately through the Constitution.? The Senate agreed to the motion to table by a vote of 53-42. Voting ?yea? were 51 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment delaying construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until federal law had been changed to ensure the oil it carries is taxed like other petroleum products. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to prevent the developer of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from using eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners who didn?t want to sell it This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented the developer of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from using eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners who didn?t want to sell it. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would connect Canada?s ?tar sands? oil fields to pipelines in the south central United States and the world market beyond. Sen. Menendez?s amendment would have required TransCanada, the company that wanted to build the project, to obtain land only ?from willing sellers and consistently with the Constitution.? This would rule out the use of eminent domain, the power of the government to take private property ? even if the owner does not agree to sell it ? for a public purpose. Supporters of Sen. Menendez?s amendment argued that Congress should not put U.S. landowners at risk of having their private land taken away by a Canadian firm. ?I support the pipeline. I think it has a lot of good benefits, but make no mistake about it, if you do not support the Menendez amendment ? you will allow a foreign corporation ? a foreign corporation ? to come in and use eminent domain to take the property,? Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said. ?We don't want to go down this line.? Opponents of Sen. Menendez?s amendment argued that the underlying bill already included enough protections; it stated that land must be taken ?consistently with the Constitution? but did not require that the landowners give their consent. Sen. Menendez?s amendment was simply designed to make it impossible to build the pipeline, they argued. ?The standard being proposed by the senator from New Jersey is an anti-states? rights amendment, and it is designed to be a poison pill on this Keystone XL pipeline, which he obviously does not support and wants to use every means to kill,? Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said. Sen. Menendez?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 43-54. Voting ?yea? were 41 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 50 Republicans and 4 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to prevent the developer of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from using eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners who didn?t want to sell it. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
(S. 1) On an amendment stipulating that during construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, developers could acquire land only in ways consistent with constitutional protections of private property rights This vote was on an amendment stipulating that during construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, developers could acquire land only in ways consistent with constitutional protections of private property rights. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Sen. Cornyn offered his amendment as a counterpoint to a separate proposal from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) that would outlaw the use of eminent domain during Keystone?s construction. Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property ? even if the owner does not agree to sell it ? for a public purpose. By contrast, Sen. Cornyn?s amendment would simply state that any acquisition of private land would have to be done ?consistently with the Constitution.? The Supreme Court had famously but controversially approved the use of eminent domain in a wide range of situations ? even for purposes of ?economic development.? Sen. Cornyn argued that Sen. Menendez was simply trying to undermine the entire bill by adding a ?poison pill.? It would be enough to simply reaffirm Congress? view that the Keystone XL pipeline must be built in a way that does not violate the Constitution?s protection of private property rights, he said. ?I think it is accurate to say that the distinguished senator from New Jersey is no fan of the Keystone XL pipeline, so he wants to add this provision to the bill to make it impossible, basically, to implement,? Sen. Cornyn said. Sen. Menendez argued that Sen. Cornyn?s amendment was simply an attempt to provide political cover for those who wanted to allow the use of eminent domain to build a pipeline for a foreign company. ?This amendment seems innocuous, but it embraces the seizure of private property for private gain to the full extent of the Constitution,? Sen. Menendez said. ?The founders of our country and its Constitution never envisioned having a company from another country come to the United States and use eminent domain to take the property of U.S. citizens for private purposes.? The Senate approved Sen. Cornyn?s amendment by a vote of 64-33. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 33 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the Senate moved forward with a bill stipulating that during construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, developers could acquire land only in ways consistent ?with the Constitution.? However, senators declined to add a provision outlawing the use of eminent domain to build the pipeline. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
(S. 1) On an amendment putting the Senate on record in opposition to President Obama?s climate pact with China This vote was on an amendment putting the Senate on record in opposition to President Obama?s climate pact with China. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Blunt?s amendment was not designed to have any practical effect on federal policy; rather, it was a statement of the ?sense of the Senate.? The amendment asserted that the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate and Clean Energy Cooperation ? which called on both countries to cut back their greenhouse gas emissions ? had ?no force and effect in the United States.? It also stated that the climate pact was bad for American consumers. Sen. Blunt argued that the U.S.-China agreement was unfair to the United States, because Americans would be required to cut net climate pollution while China would simply be slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers should make clear that it does not agree, and remind the president that any international agreement must be approved by the Senate, he said. ?The United States should not be bound by commitments where we are the only party that has a commitment made in the agreement with China,? Sen. Blunt said. Opponents of Sen. Blunt?s amendment argued that the climate pact was actually a boon for the United States, because it called for new cooperation in areas like building energy-efficient buildings. Congress should not stand in the way of efforts by the president to cut greenhouse gas emissions while improving the prospects for American business abroad, they said. ?When we reached an agreement through the president of the United States to work together as a way to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases, guess what is going to win?? Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said. ?American business, American product, and we are selling it to them because we have an agreement to work together to be more energy efficient.? Even though 51 senators voted in favor of Sen. Blunt?s amendment and only 46 voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 50 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Voting ?nay? were 44 Democrats and 2 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to go on record in opposition to President Obama?s climate pact with China. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to require Canadian energy companies to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax for oil shipped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline This vote was on an amendment that would have required Canadian energy companies to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax for oil shipped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the controversial pipeline, which would connect Canada?s ?tar sands? oil fields to the United States and the world market. Sen. Wyden?s amendment would have altered federal tax law to make sure the Canadian oil is actually classified as oil and, therefore, subject to an excise tax that funds clean-up efforts in the case of a spill. The Canadian oil would not otherwise be subject to the tax because it is a mixture of soil and bitumen that is mined rather than drilled. The substance can be turned into oil only through a complex process of extraction and separation. Sen. Wyden argued that Congress should fix the ?loophole,? which threatened to allow Canadian producers to ship their oil across the United States without paying into the clean-up fund. The Canadian oil is as likely to spill as American-produced oil, he said, and tax-free status would put U.S. oil producers at a disadvantage and force taxpayers to foot the bill for oil spills. ?Tar sands oil producers ought to pay into the same fund as other oil producers to clean up the spills. Because, make no mistake about it, at the end of the day, without this amendment that closes the tar sands loophole, Canadian tar sands oil will keep getting a free ride,? Sen. Wyden said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who opposed the amendment, argued that it would violate the Constitution?s requirement that revenue-raising bills start in the House of Representatives. She argued that it was good enough that the Senate had already added a non-binding statement in support of taxing the Canadian oil; senators could push the House to add the provision later on, she said. ?If we agree that we want to close this loophole, which we should do, we need to allow for the House to address this,? Sen. Murkowski said. ?Otherwise ? it would act as a poison pill to the Keystone XL bill.? Even though 50 senators supported Sen. Wyden?s amendment and only 47 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 45 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 47 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to require Canadian energy companies to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax for oil shipped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to require the federal government to speed up its review of applications to drill for oil and natural gas on public land This vote was on an amendment that would have required the federal government to speed up its review of applications to drill for oil and natural gas on public land. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Lee?s amendment would have required the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to process applications to drill on federal land within 30 days, with just a few exceptions that allow for an extended review. If the agency did not meet the deadline, the oil company?s permit would have been automatically approved. Sen. Lee argued that the BLM?s tendency to delay its decisions on permit applications was hurting efforts to develop oil and gas resources in the western United States. The result of the BLM?s approach was months of delay and a backlog of permit applications, and Congress should force the agency to do better, he said. ?Our security ? our energy security and our national security, more broadly ? depends ultimately on our ability to produce energy,? Sen. Lee said. ?We need to make sure we are using that (federal) land to shore up our energy independence.? Opponents of Sen. Lee?s amendment argued that it was simply an attempt to circumvent the Endangered Species Act and other important legal protections for the environment. The amendment sought to put in place an ?arbitrary? deadline and undermined American citizens? right to challenge drilling decisions in federal court, they argued. ?I guess if (my) colleagues want to keep trying to loosen environmental regulations, then maybe they should support this amendment,? Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said. Even though 51 senators voted in favor of Sen. Lee?s amendment and only 47 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 49 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 43 Democrats and 4 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to require the federal government to speed up its review of applications to drill for oil and natural gas on public land. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is a real problem that requires urgent action to prevent ?irreparable harm? to the planet This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is a real problem that requires urgent action to prevent ?irreparable harm? to the planet. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Sanders? amendment was not designed to have any practical impact on federal policy; rather, it represented a statement of the ?sense of Congress? on the topic of climate change. The amendment asserted that climate change was real and human-caused. It also stated that policymakers had ?a brief window of opportunity? in which they must act ? specifically by transitioning away from fossil fuels ? to avoid ?irreparable harm? to the planet. However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Sanders? amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it. Sen. Sanders argued that his amendment deserved an up-or-down vote because it made an important statement about climate change and the urgency with which Congress must act. He noted that the overwhelming scientific consensus was that humans were causing climate change. Quick and dramatic policy changes were required to avert the potential for disaster, he said. ?It is imperative that the United States transforms its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible,? Sen. Sanders said. ?That doesn't mean you close down every coal-burning plant in America tomorrow, but it does mean we move away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.? Supporters of the motion to table Sen. Sanders? amendment said they did not believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that politicians like Al Gore and groups like the United Nations had promoted the idea because they wanted to gain wealth and power for themselves. In reality, the science was not settled, he argued. ?I have good friends on the other side that really believe (in climate change), and I think that one sometimes has to open it up and realize there is another side to this story. When they say that 97 percent, 98 percent of the scientists agree, it just isn't true,? Sen. Inhofe said. The Senate agreed to the motion to table Sen. Sanders? amendment by a vote of 56-42. Voting ?yea? were 53 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment stating that climate change is a real problem that requires urgent action to prevent ?irreparable harm? to the planet. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is real and human-caused, and calling for investment in ?clean fossil fuel? energy technology This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is real and human-caused, and calling for investment in ?clean fossil fuel? energy technology. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Manchin?s amendment was not designed to have any practical impact on federal policy; rather, it represented a statement of the ?sense of Congress? on the topic of climate change. The amendment asserted that climate change was ?real,? ?caused by human activities,? and ?has already caused devastating problems? around the globe. It also asserted that climate change-causing fossil fuels will continue to be a major part of the U.S. energy picture, and it called for more spending on research and development of ?clean? technology that allows fossil fuels to be burned while releasing fewer greenhouse gases and other pollutants into the atmosphere. However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Manchin?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it. Sen. Manchin argued that his amendment represented a realistic approach to the problem of climate change. Lawmakers should address the issue, but they should not forget that coal, nuclear, and natural gas were the only energy sources that had been proven reliable and affordable, he said. ?We can all agree we need to act to address the potentially devastating impact of climate change,? Sen. Manchin said. ?What we are asking for is we need a federal commitment from the president to Congress to invest in the research and development of fossil energy so we can use the cleanest and most environmentally responsible way possible and find that technology to do it so we are responsible.? Supporters of the motion to table Manchin?s amendment argued that they were not convinced by the scientific evidence that climate change was caused by human activity. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he had assembled a list of ?hundreds? of scientists who did not agree with the consensus opinion on the issue. Groups like the United Nations had promoted the concept of climate change for ideological reasons, he argued. ?How arrogant is it for people to say that man can do something about changing climate? Climate has always changed,? Sen. Inhofe said. ?The science is not settled.? The Senate agreed to the motion to table Sen. Manchin?s amendment by a vote of 53-46. Voting ?yea? were 53 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 45 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment stating that climate change is real and human-caused, and calling for investment in ?clean fossil fuel? energy technology. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to limit the federal government?s ability to protect public land from development This vote was on an amendment limiting the federal government?s ability to protect public land from development. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Fischer?s amendment would have placed new limits on the U.S. Interior Department?s ability to set aside publicly owned land to conserve ?historic, cultural, environmental, scenic, recreational, developmental, or biological resources.? In the future, when considering such a designation, federal officials would have had to take into account the Interior Department?s ability to manage the newly protected land, given potentially scarce federal resources. Sen. Fischer said she was concerned that the federal government had obtained more land than it had the resources to manage. National parks and other protected areas are an important part of U.S. heritage, she said, but they risked falling into disrepair if Congress did not impose some limits. ?Our national parks are facing $13 billion in maintenance needs,? Sen. Fischer said. ?We want to keep these resources and parks open for our children and grandchildren to marvel at and enjoy. All of us have unique and special areas within our states, but we in Congress have the responsibility to care for the natural resources of our country.? Opponents of Sen. Fischer?s amendment argued that it would erect unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that would make it more difficult to set aside sites of national importance. Americans risked losing important environmental and cultural treasures, they argued. ?This amendment would open the courthouse door over disputes of whether to place worthy lands under protection because of challenges that there are not enough resources or certain issues were not considered ahead of time,? Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said. ?I think it will do harm to the protection of necessary lands in our country.? Even though 54 senators voted in favor of Sen. Fischer?s amendment and only 45 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 50 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 41 Democrats and 4 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to limit the federal government?s ability to protect public land from development. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
(S. 1) On an amendment endorsing the protection of federal land for environmental and recreational purposes This vote was on an amendment endorsing the protection of federal land for environmental and recreational purposes. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Boxer?s amendment would have no practical impact on federal policy; rather, it amounted to a ?sense of Congress? statement that public land is an important part of American heritage and gives a boost to local economies. The amendment asserted that the designation of federally protected land should continue where it is appropriate and endorsed by local citizens. Sen. Boxer said she offered the amendment because Republicans were considering legislation that would make it harder for the federal government to protect sensitive public land from development. As a result, it was important for Congress to reaffirm its commitment to setting aside land for the benefit of all Americans, she said. ?Can my colleagues imagine America without Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Natural Bridges in Utah, Scottsbluff in Nebraska, Muir Woods in California, Glacier Bay in Alaska?? Sen. Boxer said. Opponents of Sen. Boxer?s amendment said Congress should be encouraging the federal government to give up some of its land, not protect more of it. Federal protection of land stifles economic growth by limiting recreational activities and economic development opportunities, they said. ?We don?t need to be encouraging the federal government to make it even harder on our state and local communities,? Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said. ?In fact, quite the opposite. We need to give states more control over the land within their borders and leave more of the management, maintenance, and conservation up to local officials.? Even though 55 senators voted in favor of Sen. Boxer?s amendment and only 44 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 44 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to endorse the protection of federal land for environmental and recreational purposes. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to put Congress on record as believing that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change
This vote was on an amendment putting Congress on record as believing that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Schatz?s amendment would have no practical impact on federal policy; rather, it called for a ?sense of Congress? statement that climate change is real, and that humans contribute ?significantly? to the phenomenon. Supporters of Sen. Schatz?s amendment argued that it was a common-sense affirmation of the views of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Congress had not been able to pass legislation addressing climate change in any real way, they said, but it should at least be able to come together and acknowledge that the warming climate is a problem. ?We may not agree on the solutions, on the path forward or even on some of the details, but I do believe it is time for us to begin to agree on a basic set of facts,? Sen. Schatz said. ?The purpose of my amendment is to take a step back, to take a deep breath on a very contentious issue, and to give the Senate an opportunity to come together and state with no value judgment that we accept the work of thousands of the world's brightest and most dedicated scientists.? Opponents of Sen. Schatz?s amendment said they took issue with the inclusion of the word ?significantly? in the amendment ? as in, human activity ?significantly contributes to climate change.? This was an ?arrogant? idea that had been ?cooked up by the United Nations,? Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said. ?Go back and look at the archeological findings. They talk about climate from the beginning of time having changed and changed both ways. The Scriptures talk about it,? Sen. Inhofe said. ?Yes, (the climate) is changing ? no question about that. But the hoax is that there are people who are so arrogant they think they have the power to change climate.? Even though 50 senators voted in favor of Sen. Schatz?s amendment and only 49 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 45 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 49 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to put Congress on record as believing that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to put Congress on record believing that climate change is real, but that construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline would not make it worse This vote was on an amendment putting Congress on record believing that climate change is real, but that construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline would not make it worse. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. In response to a Democratic amendment stating that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change, Sen. Hoeven offered one of his own. The amendment would have no real policy impact, but amounted to a statement by the Senate that climate change is real and caused at least in some part by humans. Sen. Hoeven?s amendment also stated ? quoting an Obama administration environmental impact statement ? that the Keystone XL pipeline could actually decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Supporters of Sen. Hoeven?s amendment argued that it was symbolically important for the Senate to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change was real and human-caused. While some might be concerned about the amendment?s assertions regarding the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said, this was an accurate quotation of the Obama administration?s environmental impact statement, and therefore the amendment still merited support. ?We are about to vote on something that I think will be recorded as a breakthrough moment in the climate debate. For the first time we will go on record saying the following: Climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate change,? Sen. Boxer said. Opponents of the amendment ? a group that included Sen. Hoeven himself ? argued that they were not convinced that climate change was driven by human activity. Climate is changing. Climate has always changed, and it always will,? Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said. ?There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence, and there is historical evidence. It will always change. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant, who think that they are so powerful that they can change the climate. Man can't change the climate.? Even though 59 senators voted in favor of Sen. Hoeven?s amendment and only 40 voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 44 Democrats and 15 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 39 Republicans and 1 Democrat. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to put Congress on record believing that climate change is real, but that construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline would not make it worse. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to give power plants an exemption from the Clean Air Act to burn coal waste that remained after previous mining activities This vote was on an amendment that would have given power plants an exemption from the Clean Air Act to burn coal waste that remained after previous mining activities. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Toomey?s amendment dealt with waste that had been left behind after coal-mining operations ? in some cases, mining that took place in the 19th century. Sen. Toomey?s amendment would have allowed power plants to clean up these areas by burning the leftover waste, and without complying with the pollution restrictions that would normally apply under the Clean Air Act. Supporters of Sen. Toomey?s amendment argued that it would provide a relatively cheap way to clean up dirty, dangerous coal waste sites. By burning the coal waste, the power plants would get it out of the soil and nearby streams, they said. This clean-up effort was important and merited the temporary exemption from air pollution restrictions, they said. ?These mountains of coal poison our water. They poison our air when they spontaneously combust and burn ? sometimes for over a year ? releasing pollutants with no controls whatsoever,? Sen. Toomey said. ?A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to continue to clean up this environmental disaster that we have on our hands.? Opponents of Sen. Toomey?s amendment took issue with the idea of giving power plants a special exemption from air pollution laws. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said lawmakers shouldn?t have to weaken environmental protections in order to protect the environment, calling the amendment an ?attack on the Clean Air Act.? ?I do not know why we should give some power plants in Pennsylvania an exemption to the Clean Air Act,? Sen. Cantwell said. ?Obviously, there are businesses all across America that have to comply with environmental laws. By voting against this amendment, we can continue to fight against these pollution issues and make sure that special interests are not getting another narrow carve-out in this legislation.? Even though 54 senators voted in favor of Sen. Toomey?s amendment and only 45 voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 51 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats and 3 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to give power plants an exemption from the Clean Air Act to burn coal waste that remained after previous mining activities. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to delay construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline until the federal government issued rules on the storage and transportation of petroleum coke
This vote was on an amendment that would have delayed construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline until the federal government issued rules on the storage and transportation of petroleum coke. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. The underlying bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations. Sen. Durbin?s amendment would have delayed approval of the Keystone pipeline until the federal government had developed new regulations on petroleum coke ? or ?petcoke? ? a byproduct of the oil refining process that contains heavy metals. Sen. Durbin noted that the Keystone XL would transport massive amounts of petroleum coke-laden oil products through the U.S. mainland. This substance was potentially dangerous, not properly controlled, and raising concerns in communities around the country, he said. ?When you think of all of the things blowing in the air, how in the world did petcoke end up being treated like fairy dust?? Sen. Durbin said. ?It is exempt from laws relating to hazardous waste and materials? It is time we put the health and well-being of Americans ahead of the profits of any industry involved in the processing of Canadian tar sands.? Opponents of Sen. Durbin?s amendment argued that there was little proof that petroleum coke caused serious health problems. There was no reason for lawmakers to push for regulation of a substance that is not known to be harmful, they said. ?The EPA's own website states ? and this is from their website ? petroleum coke itself has a low level of toxicity, and there is no evidence of carcinogenicity,? Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said. ?I appreciate the concerns those in neighborhoods (near petroleum coke storage sites) have, but I think it is important that we recognize we are not trying to skip the science.? The Senate defeated Sen. Durbin?s amendment by a vote of 41-58. Voting ?yea? were 40 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 53 Republicans and 5 Democrats. As a result, the Senate moved forward with a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, but without adding a provision calling for regulation of petroleum coke. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
(S. 1) On an amendment to limit the attorneys? fees that can be awarded in cases related to the Endangered Species Act This vote was on an amendment that would have limited the attorneys? fees that can be awarded in cases related to the Endangered Species Act. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Lee?s amendment would have tacked on a provision capping the attorneys? fees awarded in endangered-species cases that are argued in federal court. Federal law did not limit these awards, but Sen. Lee?s amendment would have instituted a limit of $125 per hour. Sen. Lee argued that the amendment would discourage a ?dishonest, distorted practice? in which activists sued the federal government, settled out of court for a more favorable outcome, and then collected attorney?s fees. He said the practice wasted money and encouraged legal outcomes weighted too heavily toward protection of endangered species. ?Congress must put an end to policymaking by litigation, and it must do so by removing the incentives to engage in this kind of litigation,? Sen. Lee said. ?This simple fix would deter the frivolous lawsuits that so often end up in closed-door settlements with federal agencies.? Opponents of Sen. Lee?s amendment argued that it would jeopardize ordinary Americans? ability to challenge federal rulings that could harm them or the environment. The courts and Congress have allowed attorneys? fees to protect the interests of these less-politically powerful individuals, and lawmakers should not erode them, they said. ?Basically, what the Lee amendment does is say you will not be able to (recoup) the attorneys' fees at the cost of doing business, and their hope is that citizens will then not have representation before the courts on issues such as clean air, clean water, and other environmental issues,? Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said. Even though Sen. Lee?s amendment received 54 ?yea? votes and only 45 senators voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 54 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 45 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to limit the attorneys? fees that can be awarded in cases related to the Endangered Species Act. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment barring the use of foreign-made steel in construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline
This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment barring the use of foreign-made steel in construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. The vote came as the Senate debated Sen. John Hoeven?s (R-ND) bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. Sen. Hoeven?s bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations. During debate on Sen. Hoeven?s bill, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) had offered an amendment requiring TransCanada to use only American-made iron and steel when constructing the Keystone XL pipeline. Under the terms of the amendment, foreign-made steel could have been used only if U.S. steel would have driven up the price of construction by 25 percent or more. However, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? Sen. Franken?s amendment. This motion would essentially kill the amendment, preventing an up-or-down vote on the proposal. Supporters of Sen. Franken?s amendment argued that it would help make sure the construction of the pipeline benefited American workers. Construction of the pipeline would bring greater risk of pollution to U.S. soil, and so lawmakers had a responsibility to make sure it also delivered benefits ? such as a boost to the U.S. steel industry, they said. ?A vote to table this (amendment) is a vote against American jobs,? Sen. Franken said. ?It is a vote against jobs in Ohio and Minnesota. It is a vote against the shippers who ship our iron ore over the Great Lakes or by rail or over the Mississippi so it can be used to make steel.? Supporters of the motion to table argued that it would be unfair to force TransCanada, a private company, to buy its raw materials from certain suppliers. This would create a potentially harmful precedent of federal micromanagement of private industry, they argued. ?I think all of us want to buy American and buy local whenever and wherever we can,? Sen. Murkowski said. ?But I think the bigger question here ? and what we have in front of us with the Keystone XL pipeline ? is what this amendment would do? This would be the first time that Congress has directed or forced private parties to purchase domestic goods and materials.? The Senate agreed to the motion to table by a vote of 53-46. Voting ?yea? were 53 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 45 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the Senate killed an amendment barring the use of foreign-made steel in construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring oil companies to sell their petroleum in the United States, rather than on the world market, if it was transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring oil companies to sell their petroleum in the United States, rather than on the world market, if it was transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The vote came as the Senate debated Sen. John Hoeven?s (R-ND) bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. Sen. Hoeven?s bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations. During the debate on Sen. Hoeven?s bill, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) had offered an amendment stating that petroleum that traveled through the Keystone pipeline could not be sold on the world market. However, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? Sen. Markey?s amendment. This motion would essentially kill the amendment, preventing an up-or-down vote on the proposal. Sen. Markey argued that lawmakers should allow a vote on his proposal because it was the only way to ensure that the Keystone pipeline would benefit the United States, as its supporters insisted it would. TransCanada was simply looking for a cheap way to get its product to the world market, and without the amendment, Americans would get nothing in return for the increased risk of oil spills and pollution, Sen. Markey said. ?We import 5 million barrels of oil per day into the United States. We should not allow the Canadians to use the United States as a straw to be able to then go down to the Gulf of Mexico and send that oil out of the country,? Sen. Markey said. ?We should be working to have energy independence in America. When we are importing 5 million barrels of oil a day from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, we are in no way independent.? Supporters of the motion to table Sen. Markey?s amendment argued that, if the Keystone pipeline were not built, then TransCanada would find a different way to get its oil to the market. This would probably mean sending it to Canada?s west coast, where it would all be shipped overseas, Sen. Hoeven argued. ?(Sen. Markey) is making an argument that doesn?t work in a global economy, where he is saying if we can?t have 100 percent of it every single day ? not one drop leaves ? then export all of it. I want 100 percent or nothing. That doesn?t make sense,? Sen. Hoeven said. ?As we produce more oil, we not only help ourselves, we help our allies. So we have to understand what it takes to build an energy plan and do it the right way rather than blocking the very infrastructure and doing the very things that have led to incredible benefits today for our consumers at the pump.? The Senate agreed to the motion to table by a vote of 57-42. Voting ?yea? were 54 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats. As a result, the Senate killed an amendment requiring oil companies to sell their petroleum in the United States, rather than on the world market, if it was transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
(S. 1) On a motion aimed at allowing the Senate to formally consider a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline This vote was on a motion aimed at allowing the Senate to formally consider a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. The bill, which was sponsored by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), was aimed at giving official U.S. government approval to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada, the company that wanted to build the pipeline, was seeking to connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. Sen. Hoeven?s bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations. However, the Senate could not hold its formal debate on Sen. Hoeven?s bill unless it first approved a ?motion to proceed? to the legislation. Senate Republicans offered the motion to proceed, but this in turn could not get an up-or-down vote unless the Senate first agreed to a separate ?motion for cloture.? A motion for cloture limits the time that a proposal can be debated. If the motion for cloture is not approved, senators can drag the debate on literally forever ? effectively using the endless delay of a ?filibuster? to kill Sen. Hoeven?s bill. Supporters of the motion for cloture argued that Sen. Hoeven?s bill enjoyed wide majority support among members of Congress. If approved, the bill would also help create jobs by stimulating construction of the pipeline, they argued. As a result, the Senate should take up the legislation as soon as possible, they argued. ?That is important, not just because this is bipartisan legislation,? Sen. Hoeven said. ?This is an opportunity for all the members of this body ? Republican and Democrat ? to come forward with their amendments in an open amendment process and really have an energy debate. Let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country.? Opponents of the motion for cloture argued that the Obama administration was doing the right thing by carefully considering the proposal pipeline, and that the process should be allowed to continue. The Keystone pipeline would bring very few jobs to the United States and do nothing to lower gas prices, but it would exacerbate climate change and endanger water supplies, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said. ?Anyone who looks at the facts and does the math ought to oppose this bill and oppose construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,? Sen. Schatz said. ?For me and for many Americans, a vote against this bill is a vote to preserve and protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. It is a vote to ensure that we continue to reduce carbon pollution and fight climate change. It is a vote to leave our children a healthy world.? The Senate agreed to the motion for cloture by a vote of 63-32. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 32 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the Senate ended debate and moved on to a separate, up-or-down vote on whether to formally consider legislation authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
(H.R. 26) On an amendment that would have stripped the underlying terrorism-insurance bill of an unrelated provision weakening regulation of financial markets This vote was on an amendment that would have stripped the underlying terrorism-insurance bill of an unrelated provision weakening regulation of financial markets. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill reauthorizing the U.S. terrorism risk insurance program (TRIA). The underlying bill dealt mainly with managing risk for large-scale construction projects, and had little to do with the oversight of financial markets. However, House Republicans had added a provision that rolled back a piece of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that Congress passed in 2010. The Dodd-Frank law had given federal regulators oversight of the trading of financial assets known as ?derivatives.? The provision added by Republicans sought to remove many companies ? especially those that were not banks ? from federal regulators? oversight. Sen. Warren?s amendment would have deleted the Republicans? provision, thus preserving the authority given to federal regulators under the Dodd-Frank bill. Sen. Warren argued that the effort to undermine federal regulations was a bad omen for the American economy. Progressive groups had fought hard to get meaningful financial reform after Wall Street created the financial crisis of 2008, she said, and lawmakers should not allow House Republicans to use an unrelated bill to roll back that progress. ?If Republicans want to try to roll back financial reforms, let's have that debate on the merits of each proposal,? Sen. Warren said. ?But we cannot have that debate if we permit Republicans to attach financial reform rollbacks to must-pass pieces of legislation such as government funding bills and the TRIA reauthorization bill.? Opponents of Sen. Warren?s amendment argued that the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress had been too aggressive in regulating the financial industry. Federal regulators did not need oversight over ?Main Street? businesses such as farms and small businesses that use derivatives to manage their risk, they argued. The extra provision in the underlying terrorism-insurance bill would roll back those overzealous regulations and give relief to the business community, they argued. ?These are organizations that are trying to manage their own economic risk in their businesses. This is not Wall Street. This is Main Street,? Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) said. ?(The provision in the underlying terrorism-insurance bill) would allow them to keep their limited funds and capital in play for their use for investment, growth, and for expansion and job development in our economy.? The Senate defeated Sen. Warren?s amendment by a vote of 31-66. Voting ?yea? were 31 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. Voting ?nay? were 53 Republicans and 13 Democrats. As a result, the Senate moved forward with a bill that would roll back some of federal regulators? authority to oversee the trading of financial assets known as ?derivatives.? GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen R. Bough, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Missouri ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Stephen R. Bough, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Missouri ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Colette Dodson Honorable, of Arkansas, to be a Member of FERC ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Sarah R. Saldana, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Sarah R. Saldana, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Frank A. Rose, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of State ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Daniel J. Santos, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Vivek Hallegere Murthy to be Surgeon General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Vivek Hallegere Murthy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 83 ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On the Point of Order (Is the Point of Order Well Taken Re: Cruz Constitutional Point of Order ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Stephen R. Bough ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Christopher Smith ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: John Charles Cruden ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Jonathan Nicholas Stivers ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Marcus Dwayne Jadotte ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Estevan R. Lopez ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Daniel J. Santos ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Colette Dodson Honorable ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Frank Rose ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Antony Blinken ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Vivek Murthy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Carolyn Watts Colvin ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Sarah R. Saldana ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Nathan Saperstein, of D.C., to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate Re: Coburn Appeal ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ronald Walter, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Virginia Tyler Lodge, of Tennessee, to be a Member of Board of Directories of TVA ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Lauren McGarity McFerran, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ellen Dudley Williams, of Maryland, to be Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lauren McGarity McFerran, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lydia Kay Griggsby, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Gregory N. Stivers, of Kentucky, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Joseph S. Hezir, of Virginia, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Franklin M. Orr, Jr., of California, to be Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Gerald J. Pappert, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Mark A. Kearney, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on David J. Hale, of Kentucky, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation P. David Lopez, of Arizona, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motoin to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of P. David Lopez, of AZ, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Charlotte A. Burrows, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Robert S. Adler, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Nani A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robert S. Adler, of the District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Nani A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Colleen Bradley Bell, of California, to be Ambassador of the USA to Hungary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Noah Bryson Mamet, of California, to be Ambassador of the USA to the Argentine Republic ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Colleen Bradley Bell, of California, to be Ambassador to Hungary ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Noah Bryson Mamet, of California, to be Ambassador to the Argentine Republic ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Victor Allen Bolden, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Victor Allen Bolden, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Wendy Beetlestone, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Madeline Cox Arleo, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Brenda K. Sannes, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Pamela Pepper, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2685 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Passage of the Bill (S.2280 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Eleanor Louise Ross, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Mark Howard Cohen, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leslie Joyce Abrams, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Randolph D. Moss, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leigh Martin May, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for Northern District of Georgia ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Randolph D. Moss, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for D.C. ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Amdt. No. 3852 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen G. Burns, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stephen G. Burns, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeffery Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2199 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.J.Res. 19 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2199 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Henry J. Aaron, of D.C., to be a Member of the Social Security Advisory Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: S.2648 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Reid Amdt. No. 3751 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2648 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2569 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 3585 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3584 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Amendment (Carper Amdt. No. 3583 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 3582 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Pamela Harris, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Pamela Harris, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on John W. deGravelles, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Robin L. Rosenberg, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Andre Birotte, Jr., of California, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Julie E. Carnes, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline re: Coburn Amdt. No. 3549 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.2578 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Norman C. Bay, of New Mexico, to be a Member of FERC ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Norman C. Bay, of New Mexico, to be a Member of FERC ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Julian Castro, of Texas, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On the Nomination (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Cheryl Ann Krause, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3380 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On the Amendment (Flake Amdt. No. 3379 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Leon Rodriguez, of Maryland, to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leon Rodriguez, of Maryland, to be Director of the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Geoffrey Crawford, of Vermont, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Beth Bloom, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Carlos Mendoza, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Paul G. Byron, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Gustavo Velasquez Aguilar, to be Assistant Secretary of HUD ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Peter Joseph Kadzik, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Peter Kadzik, of New York, to be Assistant Attorney General ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Staci Michelle Yandle, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Darrin P. Gayles, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Staci Michelle Yandle, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, to be Ambassador United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.2432 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation of Richard Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leo T. Sorokin, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of M. Hannah Lauck, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Sylvia Matthews Burwell to be Secretary of Health and Human Services ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Tanya S. Chutkan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Bruce Hendricks, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Mark G. Mastroianni, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, for the Rank of Ambassador as U.S. Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, for the rank of Ambassador as U.S. Representative to UN Human Rights Counsel ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Governors ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 3060 to H.R. 3474 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture of Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on James Alan Soto, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Douglas L. Rayes, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke cloture on Rosemary Marquez, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Diane J. Humetewa, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John Joseph Tuchi, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Steven Paul Logan, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona ) |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2262 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robin S. Rosenbaum, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation James D. Peterson, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Nancy J. Rosenstengel, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of James D. Peterson, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Indira Talwani, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
|
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
|
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
|
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
|
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
|
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
|
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
|
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1 |
|
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Janet L. Yellen to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian J. Davis, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Brian J. Davis, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation John A. Koskinen, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John A. Koskinen, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment with Amendment to H.R. 3304 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3304 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J.Res. 59 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J.Res. 59 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.J.Res. 59 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeh Charles Johnson, of New Jersey, to be Secretary of Homeland Security ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be Deputy Secretary of State ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Deborah Lee James, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Air Force ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Susan P. Watters, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Brian Morris, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Patricia M. Wald, of D.C. to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia M. Wald, to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Landya B. McCafferty, of N.H., to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth A. Wolford, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Elizabeth A. Wolford, of N.Y., to be U.S. District Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Chai Rachel Feldblum, of D.C., to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Chai Rachel Feldblum to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Cornelia T.L. Pillard, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia Pillard to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia Pillard to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia Pillard ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Melvin L. Watt, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (McConnell Appeal) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin L. Watt to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin Watt ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 28 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1197 ) |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (McConnell Appeal) ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (Reid Appeal) ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On the Motion to Adjourn (McConnell Motion to Adjourn until 5 p.m. ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia A. Millett ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 2175 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On the Amendment (Ayotte Amdt. No. 2255 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robert L. Wilkins, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia T.L. Pillard, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Passage of the Bill (S. 815 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 815, As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 2013 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 815 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Katherine Archuleta, of Colorado, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard F. Griffin, Jr. to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard F. Griffin, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J.Res. 26 ) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1569 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the House Message to Accompany H.J. Res. 59 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 59 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table House Amdts. to Senate Amdt. to H.J.Res. 59 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 59 As Amended ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On the Amendment (Reid Amdt. No. 1974 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budget Points of Order re: H.J. Res. 59 and Amdt. No. 1974 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Elaine D. Kaplan, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Valerie E. Caproni, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1243 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark Gaston Pearce, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Mark Gaston Pearce, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Nancy Jean Schiffer, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Nancy Jean Schiffer, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit (Motion to Table the Toomey Motion to Recommit to the Committee on Appropriations ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1911 As Amended ) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1774 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On the Amendment (Reed Amdt. No. 1778 ) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1243 ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Confirmation of Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Passage: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 295 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H RES 295 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Passage: H R 2609 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2609 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 66 to H R 2609 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 64 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 60 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 2609 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2609 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2609 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2609 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2609 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 288 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 288 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1564 To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to prohibit the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from requiring public companies to use specific auditors or require the use of different auditors on a rotating basis |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Passage: H R 2231 Offshore Energy and Jobs Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2231 Offshore Energy and Jobs Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2231 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2231 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2231 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2231 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2231 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2231 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2231 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2231 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Passage: H R 1613 To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1613 To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1613 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1613, Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act; providing for consideration of H.R. 2231, Offshore Energy and Jobs Act; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2410, making appropriations for Agriculture, FY 2014 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1613, Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act; providing for consideration of H.R. 2231, Offshore Energy and Jobs Act; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2410, making appropriations for Agriculture, FY 2014 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Passage: H R 1947 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1947 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 56 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1947 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1947 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1947 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 271 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal years 2018, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 271 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal years 2018, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Passage: H R 1797 District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 266 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 266 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Passage: H R 1960 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1960 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1960 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1960 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1960 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1960 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1960 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1960 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1960 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 260 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 260 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Passage: H R 1256 Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1256 Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 256 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Passage: H R 2217 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2217 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2217 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 2217 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2217 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2217 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2217 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2216 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2216 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2216 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2216 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2216 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 243 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 243 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Passage: H R 1911 Smarter Solutions for Students Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1911 Smarter Solutions for Students Act |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 232 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 232 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Passage: H R 3 To approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3 To approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 228 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 228 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Passage: H R 1062 To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1062 To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1062 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1062 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Passage: H R 45 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 45 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 215 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 45) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 215 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 45) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On Passage: H R 807 To require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 807 To require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 807 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 202 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 807) to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 202 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 807) to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Passage: H R 1406 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1406 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 198 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 198 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 527 To amend the Helium Act to complete the privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 178 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 527) to amend the Helium Act to complete the privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for other purposes |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 175 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1549, Helping Sick Americans Now Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 175 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1549, Helping Sick Americans Now Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Passage: H R 624 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 624 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 164 Providing for consideration of H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 249 To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Passage: H R 1120 Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1120 Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 146 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1120) Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 146 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1120) Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 678 To authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 678 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 140 Providing for consideration of H.R. 678, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1033 To authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments: H R 933 Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Agreeing to the Concurrent Resolution: H CON RES 25 Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 25 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 25 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 25 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 25 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 115 Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 122 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) Congressional Budget, 2014; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress; and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 122 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) Congressional Budget, 2014; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress; and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Passage: H R 803 Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 803 Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 803 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 113 Providing for consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 113 Providing for consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On Passage: H R 890 To prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 890 To prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 107 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 107 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Passage: H R 933 Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 933 Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 99 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 99 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On Passage: S 47 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to S 47 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Passage: H R 273 To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 15 Providing for the conditional adjournment of the House and Senate |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 66 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 66 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 592 To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify that houses of worship are eligible for certain disaster relief and emergency assistance on terms equal to other eligible private nonprofit facilities, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On Passage: H R 444 To require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 444 To require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 444 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 48 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 48 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On Passage: H R 325 To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 325 To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 39 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 39 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Passage: H R 152 Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 152 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 152 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 152 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 152 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 152 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 152 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 152 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 152 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 23 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 152) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On Motion to Commit: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Refer: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 659 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments: H R 8 To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6726 To prevent the 2013 pay adjustment for Members of Congress and persons holding other offices or positions in the Federal Government from being made |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
On Passage: H R 6684 Spending Reduction Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6684 Spending Reduction Act of 2012 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 642 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 840 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 641 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 840 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 841 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 66, approving the renewal of impact restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003; and providing for consideration of H.R. 6684, Spending Reduction Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 639 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 841 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 66, approving the renewal of impact restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003; and providing for consideration of H.R. 6684, Spending Reduction Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6190 Asthma Inhalers Relief Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 622 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 827 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 621 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 827 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Passage: H R 6429 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 612 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6429 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 821 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6429, STEM Jobs Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 808 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6156, to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to products of the Russian Federation and Moldova and to require reports on the compliance of the Russian Federation with its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 808 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6156, to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to products of the Russian Federation and Moldova and to require reports on the compliance of the Russian Federation with its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 603 |
On Passage: H R 3409 To limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 602 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3409 To limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 601 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3409 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3409 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3409 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3409 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3409 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3409 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3409 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 594 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3409 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 593 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3409 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 592 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3409 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 591 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5987 To establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 590 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6429 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
On Passage: H J RES 118 Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of HHS relating to waiver and expenditure authority under the Social Security Act with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 788 Providing for consideration of (H.J.Res. 118) and (H.R. 3409) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 788 Providing for consideration of (H.J.Res. 118) and (H.R. 3409) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5912 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
On Passage: H R 6213 No More Solyndras Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6213 No More Solyndras Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6213 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6213 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 117 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
On Passage: H R 6365 National Security and Job Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6365 National Security and Job Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 779 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 778 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes; H.R. 6365, the National Security and Job Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 572 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 778 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes; H.R. 6365, the National Security and Job Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 569 |
On Passage: H R 5949 To extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 568 |
On Passage: H R 5544 Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5544 Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 773 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5544, to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota for the public school system, and for consideration of H.R. 5949, to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 years |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 773 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5544, to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota for the public school system, and for consideration of H.R. 5949, to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 years |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 56 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
On Passage: H R 6233 Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6233 Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
On Passage: H R 6169 To provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6169 To provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 550 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6169 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 752 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 752 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
On Passage: H R 8 To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 8 To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 8 To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that accounts in the Thrift Savings Fund are subject to certain Federal tax levies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 747 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6169) Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 747 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 540 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 747 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6169) Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3803 District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 828 Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 679 To reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Passage: H R 4078 To provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 percent |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4078 To provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 percent |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4078 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4078 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4078 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4078 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4078 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 741 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078) to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 percent |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4078 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 459 To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6168 President Obama?s Proposed 2010-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
On Passage: H R 6082 Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6082 Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 6082 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 6082 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 6082 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 6082 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 6082 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6082 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 738 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078), Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012, and providing for the bill (H.R. 6082), Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 738 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078), Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012, and providing for the bill (H.R. 6082), Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2039 To allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2362 Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Passage: H R 5856 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 53 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 50 to H R 5856 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5856 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5856 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 5856 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5856 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5856 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Passage: H R 4402 National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4402 National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4402 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4402 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4402 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4402 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4402 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 726 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4402, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On Passage: H R 6079 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6079 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 457 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 724 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6079) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 724 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6079) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Passage: H R 5972 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5972 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 717 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5856, Defense Appropriations for FY 2013; consideration of H.R. 6020, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY 2013; consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 718 Raising a question of the privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 706 Authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Motion to Refer the Resolution to Oversight and Government Reform: H RES 711 Recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 708 Relating to the consideration of House Report 112-546 and an accompanying resolution, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 706) authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5972 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5972 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5972 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5972 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5972 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5972 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5972 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5972 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5972 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Black of Tennessee Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Hoyer of Maryland Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 697 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5973, Agriculture Appropriations 2013, and providing for consideration of H.R. 5972, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 697 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5973, Agriculture Appropriations 2013, and providing for consideration of H.R. 5972, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On McKinley of West Virginia Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Passage: H R 4480 Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4480 Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4480 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4480 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4480 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4480 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4480 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4480 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 691 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4480), the Strategic Energy Production Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 691 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4480), the Strategic Energy Production Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2938 Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Passage: H R 2578 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2578 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 688 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2578) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 688 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2578) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Passage: H R 5882 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5882 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5882 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5882 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5882 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Passage: H R 5855 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5855 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Passage: H R 436 Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 436 Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2012 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 679 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 679 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5855 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5855 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5855 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Doggett Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Flake Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Passage: H R 5325 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5325 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 5325 |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 5325 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5325 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5325 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5325 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5854 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5854 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5854 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5743 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3541 Prenatal Non-discrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 667 Providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 5743) Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2013; (H.R. 5854) Military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriation; (H.R. 5855) Department of Homeland Security Appropriation; and (H.R. 5325) Energy and Water Development Appropriation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 667 Providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 5743) Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2013; (H.R. 5854) Military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriation; (H.R. 5855) Department of Homeland Security Appropriation; and (H.R. 5325) Energy and Water Development Appropriation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Rahall Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Barrow Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Passage: H R 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 4310 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4310 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 661 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 661 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Passage: H R 4970 To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4970 To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Passage: H R 5326 Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5326 Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Passage: H R 5652 To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5652 To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5652 to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5652 to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 61 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 60 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5326 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 63 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5326 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5326 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5326 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5326 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5326 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 643 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 643 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Passage: H R 4628 To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4628 To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Passage: H R 3523 To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
(H.R. 3523) On an amendment to ensure a cybersecurity bill could not be used as justification for the U.S. government to restrict internet access or for an employer to ask job applicants to disclose their passwords for Facebook and other social media sites This vote was on an amendment that would have ensured a cybersecurity bill could not be used as justification for the U.S. government to restrict internet access or for an employer to ask job applicants to disclose their passwords for Facebook and other social media sites. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Cyber Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3523 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 631 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3523) Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act; providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 631 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3523) Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act; providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3336 Small Business Credit Availability Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Passage: H R 9 Small Business Tax Cut Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 9 Small Business Tax Cut Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 9 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 620 Providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 620 Providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Passage: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4348 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Passage: H R 4089 Sportsmen?s Heritage Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4089 Sportsmen?s Heritage Act of 2012 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4089 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4089 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4089 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4089 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4089 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 614 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 614 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 614 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 112 Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H CON RES 112 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 112 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 112 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On Passage: H R 4281 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 600 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4281) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 112 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 597 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 112, establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 597 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 112, establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Passage: H R 3309 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3309 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3309 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3309 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3309 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 595 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3309, Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 595 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3309, Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Passage: H R 5 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 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5 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 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 591 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) 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 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 591 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) 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 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Passage: H R 2087 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2087 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2087 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 587 Providing for consideration of H. R. 2087, to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 587 Providing for consideration of H. R. 2087, to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3606 To increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3606 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3606 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3606 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3606 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3606 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3606 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 572 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3606, to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 572 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3606, to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Passage: H R 2842 Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2842 Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2842 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 570 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1134 St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Passage: H R 1837 Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1837 Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to require water resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to be managed in a way that complies with state and federal law and relies on the best available science This vote was on an amendment that would have required water resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to be managed in a way that complies with state and federal law and relies on the best available science. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to prevent a Republican bill from diverting water supplies intended to protect the environment of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented a Republican bill from diverting water supplies intended to protect the environment of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to require farmers to pay interest on the debt used to construct irrigation projects that benefit them This vote was on an amendment that would have required farmers to pay interest on the debt used to construct irrigation projects that benefit them. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to scrap an attempt to extend and lengthen contracts to ship water from the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farms and communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California This vote was on an amendment that would have scrapped an attempt to extend and lengthen contracts to ship water from the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farms and communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the quality of the water supply for Delta farmers This vote was on an amendment that would have put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the quality of the water supply for Delta farmers. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the safety of the water supply for area residents This vote was on an amendment that would have put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the safety of the water supply for area residents. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to put off a change in management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta unless federal agencies can be sure no jobs in northern California would be lost This vote was on an amendment that would have put off a change in management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta unless federal agencies can be sure no jobs in northern California would be lost.
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
(H.Res. 566) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" -- which would effectively end debate and set up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and the amendments that can be offered to the California water bill. The second vote was on passage of the resolution. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
(H.Res. 566) On a motion to end debate and immediately vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that can be offered to legislation altering the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" -- which would effectively end debate and set up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and the amendments that can be offered to the California water bill. The second vote was on passage of the resolution. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
(H.R. 2117) On passage of legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid This vote was on final passage of Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to ensure the U.S. Department of Education has authority to take action to reduce the cost of higher education This was a vote on an amendment that would have ensured the U.S. Department of Education has authority to take action to reduce the cost of higher education. The amendment was offered as a ?motion to recommit.? A motion to recommit is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to require the Department of Education to formally outline a plan to protect federal student aid dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse This was a vote on an amendment that would have required the U.S. Department of Education to formally outline a plan to protect federal student aid dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to preserve the Department of Education?s ability to establish a national standard for the definition of a ?credit hour? at colleges and universities eligible for federal student aid This vote was on an amendment that would have preserved the Department of Education?s ability to establish a national standard for the definition of a ?credit hour? at colleges and universities eligible for federal student aid. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to preserve the ability of students to file a complaint against higher education institutions that do not maintain the integrity of their programs This vote was on an amendment that would have preserved the ability of students to file a complaint against higher education institutions that do not maintain the integrity of their programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
(H.Res. 563) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would overturn federal standards for college and universities that qualify for federal student aid This vote was on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would overturn federal standards for college and universities that qualify for federal student aid. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
(H.R. 3408) On final passage of Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration This was a vote on final passage of Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to bar oil drilling within five miles of the Great Lakes or the Florida Everglades This was a vote on an amendment that would have barred oil drilling within 5 miles of any of the Great Lakes or the Florida Everglades. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to sharply cut back requirements for an environmental review of geothermal energy projects on publicly owned land This vote was on an amendment that would cut back requirements for an environmental review for geothermal energy projects on publicly owned land. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment that would prevent oil companies from drilling in newly opened federal territory if they are exempt from paying royalties for drilling in other federal territory This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented oil companies from gaining access to newly opened federal territories ? unless they agreed to renegotiate older leases that allowed them to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without paying royalties to the federal government. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to prevent natural gas harvested off the U.S. coast from being sold to foreign countries This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented natural gas harvested off the U.S. coast from being sold to foreign countries. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment attempting to speed approval of offshore renewable energy projects by limiting environmental reviews This vote was on an amendment that aims to speed up approval of offshore renewable energy projects by limiting environmental reviews. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to require stricter safety requirements for offshore oil drilling
ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to ensure offshore oil exploration is off limits in northern California This vote was on an amendment that would ensure offshore oil exploration is off limits in northern California. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to require oil companies who want to lease federally owned territory to estimate the impact an oil spill would have on the local economy This vote was on an amendment that would have required oil companies who want to lease federally owned territory to estimate the impact an oil spill would have on the local economy. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to allow four Gulf Coast states to receive more of the profits from leasing federally owned areas offshore to oil companies This vote was on an amendment that would allow four Gulf Coast states to receive more of the profits from leasing federally owned areas offshore to oil companies. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to prevent energy exploration in publicly owned areas off the coast of the northeastern United States This was a vote on an amendment that would have prevented new energy exploration in publicly owned areas off the coast of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to prevent oil exploration in publicly owned territory off the coast of California This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented new oil exploration that Republicans wanted to establish off the coast of California. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to exempt oil shale from a bill that would open vast new expanses of federally owned land to energy development This was a vote on an amendment that would have exempted oil shale deposits from a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of federally owned land to energy development. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment requiring most of the steel and iron used to build a controversial oil pipeline be produced in North America This was a vote on an amendment that would have required most of the steel and iron used to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline be produced in North America. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to restrict the use of eminent domain during construction of a controversial oil pipeline
This vote was on an amendment that would have restricted the use of eminent domain during construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to require that oil imported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline must be used in the United States This was a vote on an amendment that would have required oil imported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to be used in the United States. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to put off approval of the controversial Keystone oil pipeline until a report on its safety is completed This vote was on an amendment that would have put off approval of the controversial Keystone oil pipeline until a report on its safety is completed. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
(H.Res. 547) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" ? which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
(H.Res. 547) On a motion to end debate and immediately vote on a resolution setting a time limit and the amendments that could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" ? which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
(H.R. 3521) On passage of a bill that would allow the president to ask for clearance from Congress to cut individual items from spending bills This was a vote on final passage of a bill that would allow the president to ask for clearance from Congress to cut individual items from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
(H.R. 3521) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market. The first of these two separate procedural votes was on a motion known as the ?previous question" -- which effectively ends debate and sets up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that can be offered. The second vote was on passage of the resolution. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
(H.R. 3521) On a motion to end debate and immediately vote on a resolution setting a time limit and amendments that can be offered to two separate bills These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market. The first of these two separate procedural votes was on a motion known as the ?previous question" -- which effectively ends debate and sets up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that can be offered. The second vote was on passage of the resolution. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
(H.R. 3581) On passage of a bill changing the way costs are estimated for federal programs providing loans and other forms of credit This vote was on final passage of a Republican bill that would change the way costs are estimated for federal programs that provide credit. The legislation would generally make those programs appear more expensive than they do currently. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
(H.R. 3581) On an amendment to exempt loan programs for veterans and students from new accounting methods that would increase the programs? estimated costs This vote was on an amendment that would have exempted loan programs for veterans and students from new accounting methods that would increase the programs? estimated costs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
(H.R. 3581) On an amendment to establish a commission to study accounting methods that Congress could use to estimate the cost of federal credit programs This vote was on an amendment that would have established a commission to study accounting methods that Congress could use to estimate the cost of federal credit programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
(H.Res. 539) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation changing the way costs are estimated for federal programs providing loans and other forms of credit This was a vote to set a time limit for debate and determine which amendments could be offered to legislation that would change the way costs are estimated for federal programs that provide loans and other forms of credit. The legislation would generally make those programs appear more expensive than they do currently. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
(H.R. 1734) On passage of legislation to sell property that the federal government owns but does not need This vote was on final passage of legislation designed to reduce the federal government?s portfolio of property. The bill would establish a commission to identify property that the government no longer needs. By selling off the property, members of Congress hoped to both raise money in the short term and save money in the long term by eliminating the cost of upkeep. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
(H.R. 1734) On an amendment to exempt buildings that provide services to veterans from a program that would sell off unneeded federal property This was a vote on an amendment to exempt buildings that provide services to veterans from a program that would sell off unneeded federal property. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1734 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 537 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1734) to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of Federal buildings and other civilian real property, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 658 FAA Modernization and Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On Passage: H R 3578 To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3578 To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On Passage: H R 3582 To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3582 To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3582 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3582 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3582 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3582 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3582 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3630 Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3578, to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and providing for consideration of H.R. 3582, to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3578, to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and providing for consideration of H.R. 3582, to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3567 Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3835 To extend the pay limitation for Members of Congress and Federal employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Passage: H R 1173 Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1173 Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1173 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1173 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1173 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1173 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 522 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1173) to repeal the CLASS program |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Passage: H J RES 98 Relating to the disapproval of the President?s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on January 12, 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 515 Addressing a motion to proceed under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 949 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 501 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 948 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 947 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 504 Resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 946 |
On Motion to Go to Conference: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 945 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 502 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 501) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 944 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 502 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 501) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 942 |
On Agreeing to the Concurrent Resolution: H CON RES 94 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3672 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 938 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 500 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2055, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies Appropriations for FY 2012; providing for consideration of H.R. 3672, making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for FY 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 937 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 500 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2055, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies Appropriations for FY 2012; providing for consideration of H.R. 3672, making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for FY 2012 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 932 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1540 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 931 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1540 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 926 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 493 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 925 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 493 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 923 |
On Passage: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 922 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 919 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 491 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 918 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 491 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 917 |
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 491 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 912 |
On Passage: H R 1633 To establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 911 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1633 To establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 910 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1633 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 909 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1633 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 908 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1633 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 907 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1633 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 906 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1633 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 904 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1254 Synthetic Drug Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 903 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 487 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 902 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 487 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 901 |
On Passage: H R 10 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 900 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 899 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 898 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 897 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 896 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 895 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 891 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2471 To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer?s informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 890 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 479 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 889 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 479 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 888 |
On Passage: H R 3010 Regulatory Accountability Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 887 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3010 Regulatory Accountability Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 886 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 885 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 884 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 883 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 882 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 880 |
On Passage: H R 527 To amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 879 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 527 To amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 878 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 527 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 877 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 527 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 876 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 527 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 875 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 527 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 874 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 527 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 873 |
On Passage: H R 3463 To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 872 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3463 To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 871 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 477 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3463; Providing for consideration of H. R. 527; and Providing for consideration of H. R. 3010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 870 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 477 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3463; Providing for consideration of H. R. 527; and Providing for consideration of H. R. 3010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 869 |
On Passage: H R 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 868 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 867 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3094 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 866 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3094 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 865 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3094 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 864 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3094 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 863 |
On Motion to Rise With Recommendation That Enacting Clause Be Stricken: H R 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 859 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 470 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3094, to amend the National Labor Relations Act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of elections of labor organizations under that Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 858 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H J RES 2 Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 856 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 467 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2112, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 855 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 466 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 854 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 466 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 852 |
On Passage: H R 822 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 851 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 822 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 850 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 849 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 848 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 847 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 846 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 845 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 844 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 843 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 822 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 842 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 463 Providing for consideration of H.R. 822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 841 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2838 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 836 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2838 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 835 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2838 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 833 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2838 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 832 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2838 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 830 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 829 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 827 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2940 To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under Regulation D |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 826 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2940 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 824 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2930 To amend the securities laws to provide for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 823 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2930 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 822 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2112 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 821 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 453 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act and H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 814 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 674 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 813 |
On Passage: H R 2576 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 811 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 448 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2576 and H.R. 674 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 810 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 448 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2576 and H.R. 674 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 809 |
On Passage: H R 1904 Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 808 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1904 Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 807 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1904 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 806 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1904 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 805 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1904 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 803 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 444 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1904) to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 800 |
On Passage: H R 2273 To amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 799 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2273 To amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 798 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2273 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 797 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2273 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 796 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2273 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 795 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2273 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 794 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2273 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 793 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 431 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 792 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 431 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 791 |
On Passage: H R 2250 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 790 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2250 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 789 |
On Passage: H R 358 To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 788 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 358 To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 787 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 786 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 430 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 358) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 784 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 2832 To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 783 |
On Passage: H R 3080 To implement the United States-Korea Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 782 |
On Passage: H R 3079 To implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 781 |
On Passage: H R 3078 To implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 780 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3078 To implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 779 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 778 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 777 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 776 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 775 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 774 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 773 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 772 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 771 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 425 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832, to extend the Generalized System of Preferences; H.R. 3078, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement; H.R. 3079, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement; H.R. 3080, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 770 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2250 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 769 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 768 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 767 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 766 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 765 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 764 |
On Passage: H R 2681 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 763 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2681 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 762 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 761 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 760 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 759 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 758 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 757 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 756 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 755 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 754 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 753 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 752 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 751 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 750 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 749 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 748 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 747 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2681 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 746 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2681, to provide additional time for the EPA to issue standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for consideration of H.R. 2250, to provide additional time for the EPA to issue standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 741 |
On Passage: H R 2401 To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 740 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2401 To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 739 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 738 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 737 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 735 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 734 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 733 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 732 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 731 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 729 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 728 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 727 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2608 Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 726 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 412 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 725 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 412 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 724 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 406 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 723 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 406 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 722 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 409 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 721 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 409 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 719 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2608 Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 716 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 405 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 715 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 405 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 711 |
On Passage: H R 2587 Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 710 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2587 Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 708 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 372 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 707 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 372 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 706 |
On Passage: H J RES 77 Relating to the disapproval of the President?s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on August 2, 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 704 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 702 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2218 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 697 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1892 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 694 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 392 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, to amend the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and for consideration of H.R. 1892, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the CIA Retirement System |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 693 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 392 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, to amend the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and for consideration of H.R. 1892, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the CIA Retirement System |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 690 |
(S. 365) Final passage of legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases) This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit (the maximum amount the United States can be in debt) by $2.4 trillion through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases). FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 687 |
(S. 365) Legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases) ? On passage of a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the debt limit bill These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit (the maximum amount the United States can be in debt) by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases). The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 686 |
(S. 365) Legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the debt limit bill These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit (the maximum amount the United States can be in debt) by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases). The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 682 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2693 To cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 677 |
On Passage: S 627 Budget Control Act of 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 676 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: S 627 Budget Control Act of 2011 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 675 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 383 Providing for further consideration of the bill (S. 627) to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 672 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 382 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 671 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 382 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 668 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 666 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 665 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 663 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 375 Providing for consideration of S. 627, to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 662 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 661 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 660 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 659 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 658 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 657 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 654 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 653 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 652 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 651 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 650 |
On Passage: H R 1938 North American-Made Energy Security Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 649 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1938 North American-Made Energy Security Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 648 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 647 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 642 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 641 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1938 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 637 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 370 Providing for consideration of H. R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 636 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 635 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 634 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 633 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2584 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 632 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2584 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 363 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2584, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 629 |
On Passage: H R 2551 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2551 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 627 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2551 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 626 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2551 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 625 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2551 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 624 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2551 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2551 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 621 |
On Passage: H R 1315 To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1315 To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 619 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1315 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 618 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1315 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 617 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1315 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1315 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1315 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 614 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 358 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 359 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 612 |
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 358 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
On Passage: H R 2553 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2553 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 609 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 357 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 357 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Passage: H R 2560 Cut, Cap, and Balance Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2560 Cut, Cap, and Balance Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 604 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 355 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2560) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 603 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 355 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2560) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
On Passage: H R 2354 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2354 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 80 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 72 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 71 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 594 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 70 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 593 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 69 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 61 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 579 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 2354 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 575 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2354 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
On Passage: H R 2018 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State?s water quality standards, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 572 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2018 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State?s water quality standards, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 571 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2018 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2018 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 569 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2018 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 568 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2018 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2018 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2018 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2018 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 347 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2018), to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State?s water quality standards, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2417 Better Use of Light Bulbs Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1309 To extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the program, and to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1309 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1309 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1309 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
(H.R. 1309) On an amendment that would eliminate a provision in a flood insurance bill that directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate areas behind levees and dams as ?residual risk? floodplains. (Such a designation would have required local residents to purchase more expensive flood insurance.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) that would eliminate a provision in a flood insurance bill that directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate areas behind levees and dams as ?residual risk? floodplains. (Such a designation would have required local residents to purchase more expensive flood insurance.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
(H.R. 1309) On an amendment that would have prohibited lenders from requiring homeowners to purchase flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of a home loan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) that would have prohibited lenders from requiring homeowners to purchase flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of a home loan. This amendment was offered to legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through 2016 (which would allow the program to continue operating for another five years). Speier argued that her amendment was intended to prevent homeowners from being forced to purchase a flood insurance policy that was greater than the annual cost of their home mortgages. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $450 million for research and development of clean energy technology (such as wind and solar energy), and would also have cut $450 million from research and development of fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have increased funding by $450 million for ?ARPA-E,? a program that funds research and development of clean energy technology (such as wind and solar energy). At the same time, the amendment would have cut $450 million from research and development of fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have required the Energy Department to set aside $10 million for the production of Plutonium 238, a radioactive isotope that can be used for the production of nuclear energy This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) that would have required the Energy Department to set aside $10 million for the production of Plutonium 238, a toxic, radioactive isotope that can be used for the production of nuclear energy. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Nuclear Energy Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Nuclear Industry |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 550 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $60.5 million for the Buildings Technology Program, which funds the development of new technologies that reduce energy use in buildings This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Wu (D-OR) that would have increased funding by $60.5 million for the Buildings Technology Program, which funds the development of new technologies that reduce energy use in buildings. At the same time, the amendment would have cut $60.5 million from the Energy Department?s administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have cut $500 million from renewable energy research and development programs This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have cut $500 million from renewable energy research and development programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $227 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and would also have cut $227 million from nuclear weapons programs This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have increased funding by $227 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and would also have cut $227 million from nuclear weapons programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have cut $45.6 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) that would have cut $45.6 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $491 million for renewable energy (such as wind and solar energy) research and development, and would also have cut $491 million from nuclear weapons programs This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have increased funding by $491 million for renewable energy (such as wind and solar energy) research and development, and also would have cut $491 million from nuclear weapons programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have cut $26.5 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have cut $26.5 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
(H.R 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $24 million for renewable energy development programs, and also would have cut $50 million from fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas) research and development This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) that would have increased funding by $24 million for renewable energy development programs, and also would have cut $50 million from fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas) research and development. The amendment would have cut, however, $99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $46 million for the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient technologies. At the same time, the amendment would have cut$99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have increased funding by $46 million for the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient technologies. At the same time, the amendment would have cut$99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have eliminated federal funding for a home weatherization program that provides rebates for home renovations that save energy This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) that would have eliminated federal funding for a home weatherization program that provides rebates for home renovations that save energy. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding for clean, alternative energy technology (such as wind and solar energy) by $100 million This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have increased funding for clean, alternative energy technology (such as wind and solar energy) by $100 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 540 |
(H.R. 540) On an amendment that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to implement new clean water regulations for streams and wetlands that were not protected by current law
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to implement new clean water regulations for streams and wetlands. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would allow the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would eliminate all federal funding ($4.9 million) for an Army Corps of Engineers program intended to prepare for the impact of global climate change This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) that would eliminate all federal funding ($4.9 million) for an Army Corps of Engineers program intended to prepare for the impact of global climate change. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would increase funding by $6.36 million for dredging activities by the Army Corps of Engineers (in which sediment is removed from waterways in order keep them navigable)?and would simultaneously cut $6.36 million from the Corps? administrative expenses account. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would increase funding by $6.36 million for dredging activities by the Army Corps of Engineers (in which sediment is removed from waterways in order keep them navigable)?and would simultaneously cut $6.36 million from the Corps? administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would increase funding by $1.75 million for the maintenance of levees in areas at risk of flooding, but would cut $1 million from the Missouri River Recovery Program, which funds projects that restore the habitat of species that live within the river?s ecosystem
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) that would increase funding by $1.75 million for the maintenance of levees in areas at risk of flooding, but would cut $1 million from the Missouri River Recovery Program, which funds projects that restore the habitat of species that live within the river?s ecosystem. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers construction projects by $186 million This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) that would have increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers construction projects by $186 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
(H.R. 1309) Legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which would allow the program to continue operating through fiscal year 2016?On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which would allow the program to continue operating through fiscal year 2016. (The National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, allows property owners to purchase flood insurance from the federal government.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
(H.R. 2219) Final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. The Defense bill provided $530 billion for Defense Department programs in 2012. In addition, the measure provided $119 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
(H.R. 2219) On a motion that would have increased funding by $200 million for a program that provided veterans of the National Guard with health care and education benefits, career counseling, and suicide prevention services This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased funding by $200 million for a program that provided veterans of the National Guard with health care and education benefits, career counseling, and suicide prevention services. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000 This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2011. Specifically, Polis? amendment prohibited funds provided by the underlying Defense bill from being used to maintain more than 30,000 U.S. troops in Europe. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department bill from being used for a training program for military chaplains on implementing a new law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department bill from being used for a training program for military chaplains on implementing a new law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The training program in question also included guidelines for chaplains on performing same-sex marriages for servicemembers from states where same-sex marriage is legal. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 62 to H R 2219 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $8.5 billion from a Defense Department funding bill This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would have cut $8.5 billion from a Defense Department funding bill. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to enforce any regulation relating to the disclosure of political contributions This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to enforce any regulation relating to the disclosure of political contributions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $200 million from U.S. funding for infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have cut $200 million from the Commander?s Emergency Response program, which had funded infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to support any military operations in Libya This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to support any military operations in Libya. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $17.2 billion from a Defense Department funding bill This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) that would have cut $17.2 billion from a Defense Department funding bill. This $17.2 billion cut would have frozen Defense Department spending at fiscal year 2011 levels. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that barred the federal government from requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that barred the federal government from requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for U.S. military operations in Libya This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for U.S. military operations in Libya. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
(H.R 2219) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for a U.S. taskforce intended to spur new business opportunities in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for a U.S. taskforce intended to spur new business opportunities in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would cut $125 million from military bands and musicians This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) that would have cut $125 million from military bands and musicians. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. (Since the underlying Defense bill initially provided $325 million for military bands, this amendment would have left $200 million remaining for such purposes.) WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $4 billion from U.S. funds for Afghan security forces This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) that would have cut $4 billion from U.S. funds for Afghan security forces. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have eliminated a program that funds infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) that would have eliminated a program that funds infrastructure projects (such as the building of roads, schools, bridges, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. Specifically, Cicilline?s amendment would have cut the entire $475 million allocation for the Afghanistan infrastructure program provided by the underlying Defense bill. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $200 million from a program that funds infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) that would have cut $200 million from a program that funds infrastructure projects (such as the building of roads, schools, bridges, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have eliminated a ?$5 billion transfer fund? that allowed the Defense Department to transfer up to $5 billion into its war funding account This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that would have eliminated a ?$5 billion transfer fund? that allowed the Defense Department to transfer up to $5 billion into its war funding account. (Those funds would not constitute new spending, but rather would have been taken from another Defense Department account.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2219 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have provided $15 million for insulating facilities at military bases in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that would have provided $15 million for insulating facilities at military bases in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have required the president to withdraw all but 25,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012 This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have required the president to withdraw all but 25,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2012. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut off funding for U.S. military combat operations in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that would have cut off funding for U.S. military combat operations in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first providing Congress with an inventory of existing contracts This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first providing Congress with an inventory of existing contracts. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would allow funding provided by Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Defense Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $297 million from research and development on a new military bomber plane This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have cut $297 million from research and development on a new military bomber plane. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would increase funding by $3.6 million for a research program on illnesses affecting soldiers who served in the first Gulf War in 1991 This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that would increase funding by $3.6 million for a research program (known as the Gulf War Illness Research program) on illnesses affecting soldiers who served in the first Gulf War in 1991. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $15 million for a Defense Department program intended to reduce energy use at the department?s facilities This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have increased funding by $15 million for a Defense Department program intended to reduce energy use at the department?s facilities. (This program was known as the Environmental Security Technology Certification program, or ESTCP.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $10 million for a Defense Department environmental technology program This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have increased funding by $10 million for a Defense Department environmental technology program (known as the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, or SERDP) By increasing funding for this program by $10 million, Connolly?s amendment would have provided SERDP with the level of funding requested by President Obama. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
(H.R. 2278) Final passage of legislation that would have allowed federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft) This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would have allowed federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft). WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
(H. J. Res. 68, H.R. 2278) Legislation that would authorize continued U.S. military operations in Libya, as well as a separate bill that would allow federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft) ? On the resolution providing a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to both bills This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to two separate bills relating to U.S. military operations in Libya. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
(H.R. 1249) On a motion that would have required the Patent and Trademark Office to ?prioritize? applications for patents by inventors who ?pledge to develop or manufacture their products, processes, and technologies in the United States? This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required the Patent and Trademark Office to ?prioritize? applications for patents by inventors who ?pledge to develop or manufacture their products, processes, and technologies in the United States?? A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to patent law reform bill. LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision in a patent reform bill that would have made it easier for financial institutions to challenge patents relating to business methods This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) that would have eliminated a provision in a patent reform bill that would have made it easier for financial institutions to challenge patents relating to business methods. Supporters of this provision argued that it would help to vacate ?low-quality? patents. They often cite Amazon?s patent on ?one-click? ordering for online shopping as an example of such frivolous patents. Opponents of the business methods patents provision argued that it amounted to a special privilege for one industry?the financial industry. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would clarify that the 60-day period in which companies can apply to extend the term of their patents would begin on the next business day following the federal government?s decision allowing the patented product to go on the market This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) that would clarify that the 60-day period for patent term extensions would begin on the next business day following the federal government?s decision allowing the patented product to go on the market. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would have prohibited the U.S. from adopting a ?first-to-file? patent system (which grants patent protection to the first person to file an application for a patent for an invention?regardless of whether that person is the actual inventor) until other nations agree to adopt a one-year patent ?grace period? (which would give inventors one year to file an application for a patent after publishing an invention, and effectively prevent that inventor?s idea from being stolen). This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) that would have prohibited the U.S. from adopting a ?first-to-file? patent system (which grants patent protection to the first person to file an application for a patent for an invention?regardless of whether that person is the actual inventor) until other nations agree to adopt a one-year patent ?grace period? (which would give inventors one year to file an application for a patent after publishing an invention, and effectively prevent that inventor?s idea from being stolen). MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would have allowed fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be transferred to other government agencies This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) that would have allowed fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to be transferred to other government agencies. While this amendment (known as a ?manager?s amendment?) made mostly technical changes, its language relating to PTO fees was opposed by many Democrats--who argued that it did not guarantee that PTO funds would be used exclusively for reviewing patent applications, rather than being transferred to other government agencies. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
(H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On bringing to final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill. (H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On passage of the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
(H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On bringing to final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill. (H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On passage of the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
(H.R. 2021) Final passage of legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, and eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, and eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from measuring air pollution caused by oil drilling on water. Rather, the EPA would be limited to measuring such pollution emitted on land. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Under the bill, the authority to review challenges to oil drilling permitting decisions would instead be vested in the D.C. Court of Appeals. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
(H.R. 2021) On a motion that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining whether a bill loosening regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling would lower gas prices for consumers This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining whether an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Republicans had contended that the underlying oil drilling bill would lower the price of gasoline. This motion was nearly identical to an amendment offered by Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) during debate on the underlying oil drilling bill (see House roll call vote #475.) ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the coast of Oregon This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the coast of Oregon. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining the extent to which an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers. This was an amendment by Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to submit a report to Congress determining the extent to which an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. (The Republicans had contended that the underlying oil drilling bill would lower the price of gasoline.) GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed states to impose air pollution regulations on oil and gas drilling that were stricter than the regulations imposed by the federal government This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that would have allowed states to impose air pollution regulations on oil and gas drilling that were stricter than the regulations imposed by the federal government. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed states to appeal decisions approving or denying oil drilling permits in the nearest court of appeals, rather than the D.C. Circuit Court This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) that would have allowed states to appeal decisions approving or denying oil drilling permits in the nearest court of appeals. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have maintained the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review?and approve or deny?applications for oil drilling permits This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) that would have maintained the Environmental Review Board?s authority to review?and approve or deny?applications for oil drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Quigley?s amendment would have allowed the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to maintain this authority. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency administrator to extend the ?public comment? period for oil drilling permits by 30 days (The public comment period refers to the period during which the public can voice support for or opposition to an oil drilling permit prior to that permit being approved.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator to extend the ?public comment? period for oil drilling permits by 30 days. (The public comment period refers to the period during which the public can voice support for or opposition to an oil drilling permit prior to that permit being approved.) This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have required companies applying for oil drilling permits to disclose bonuses received by their executives This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) that would have required companies applying for oil drilling permits to disclose bonuses received by their executives. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Review Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have required oil and gas companies to disclose all federal subsidies they receive on applications for oil drilling permits This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have required oil and gas companies to disclose all federal subsidies they receive on applications for oil drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Review Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have subjected Shell Oil?s ?icebreaker? ships (ships that are literally designed to break through ice) to federal air pollution regulations This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) that would have subjected Shell Oil?s ?icebreaker? ships (ships that are literally designed to break through ice) to federal air pollution regulations. While Shell?s icebreakers are not used for oil drilling, they service ships engaged in drilling operations. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to measure air pollution from oil drilling on both onshore and offshore locations?meaning on water as well as on land. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to measure air pollution from oil drilling on both onshore and offshore locations?meaning on water as well as on land. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
(H.R. 672) Final passage of legislation that would have eliminated the Election Assistance Commission, which provides federal funding and guidance to states to administer elections This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have eliminated the Election Assistance Commission, which provides federal funding and guidance to states to administer elections. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
(H.R. 2021, H.R. 1249) Legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling, as well as a separate, unrelated patent reform bill ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. The resolution also set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to a separate, unrelated, patent reform bill. The first of these three votes was on whether to bring up the resolution (known as a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution). The second of these three votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The third vote was on passage of the resolution itself. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
(H.R. 2021, H.R. 1249) Legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling, as well as a separate, unrelated patent reform bill?On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. The resolution also set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to a separate, unrelated, patent reform bill. The first of these three votes was on whether to bring up the resolution (known as a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution). The second of these three votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The third vote was on passage of the resolution itself. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
(H.R. 2021, H.R. 1249) Legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling, as well as a separate, unrelated patent reform bill?On whether to bring up the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. The resolution also set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to a separate, unrelated, patent reform bill. The first of these three votes was on whether to bring up the resolution (known as a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution). The second of these three votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The third vote was on passage of the resolution itself. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
(H.R. 2112) Final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Agriculture Department programs This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
(H.R. 2112) On a motion that would have increased funding by $11.8 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased funding by $11.8 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is the federal agency that regulates futures markets. (Futures markets are markets based on speculation on the future prices of goods.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Agriculture Department from storing data in facilities in foreign countries This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) that would have prohibited the Agriculture Department from storing data at facilities in foreign countries. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Cyber Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have eliminated federal subsidies for farmers earning more than $250,000 per year This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated federal subsidies for farmers earning more than $250,000 per year. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $11 million from a program that kills predators of livestock
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would increase funding by $3 million for a program designed to prevent flooding and soil erosion. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that would increase funding by $3 million for a program designed to prevent flooding and soil erosion. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have required the Agriculture Department to set aside funding for cooperatives that support farmers who are members of minority groups. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Agriculture Department to set aside funding for cooperatives that support farmers who are members of minority groups. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to implement Agriculture Department regulations relating to climate change This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to implement Agriculture Department regulations relating to climate change. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have required the Agriculture Department to provide funding for urban gardening programs This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Agriculture Department to provide funding for urban gardening programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to finalize data swap reporting rules (disclosure rules governing the trading of financial information between companies) one year prior to issuing final regulations on block trading (in which one business can privately trade shares of a company with another business) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to finalize data swap reporting rules (disclosure rules governing the trading of financial information between companies) one year prior to issuing final regulations on block trading (in which one business can privately trade shares of a company with another business). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used for mifepristone, or ?RU-486,? a pill that can terminate a pregnancy during the first two months following conception This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used for mifepristone, or ?RU-486,? a pill that can terminate a pregnancy during the two months following conception. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to pay settlements in discrimination lawsuits filed by black farmers This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would have prohibited funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to pay settlements in discrimination lawsuits filed by black farmers. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have limited federal subsidies provided to farms to $125,000 This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) that would have limited federal subsidies provided to farms to $125,000. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would increase funding by $6 million for a high-speed broadband internet loan program This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) that would increase funding by $6 million for a high-speed broadband internet loan program. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Equal Access to the Internet for Everyone |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have provided $5 million for the development of grocery stores in areas where such stores and fresh food are scarce This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have provided $5 million for the development of grocery stores in areas where such stores and fresh food are scarce. (Such areas are known as ?food deserts.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have increased funding provided by an agriculture bill for the Food and Drug Administration by $49 million. Thus was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) that would have increased funding provided by an agriculture bill for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $49 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funding provided by an agriculture bill from being used to support Brazil?s cotton industry. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would prohibit funding provided by an agriculture bill from being used to support Brazil?s cotton industry. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agricultural bill from being used for the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would prohibit funds provided by an agricultural bill from being used for the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have effectively eliminated a requirement that the Agriculture Secretary submit a report to Congress on all travel expenses relating to the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) that would have effectively eliminated a requirement that the Agriculture Secretary submit to Congress report on all travel expenses relating to the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $392 million from the Center for Tobacco Products, which regulates tobacco sales and advertising. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) that would have cut $392 million from the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). The CTP, which is part of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), regulates tobacco sales and advertising. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Tobacco Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have eliminated all federal funding ($180 million) for a program that provides school lunches to poor children in foreign countries This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have eliminated all federal funding ($180 million) for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program, which provides school lunches to poor children in foreign countries. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $100 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas in the United States by $100 million. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) that would have cut $100 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program (known as the ?Rural Development Loan Program?) intended to spur economic development in rural areas in the United States by $100 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $82.5 million from the Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program, which provides information and guidance to new mothers about breastfeeding and child nutrition. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would have cut $82.5 million from the Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program, which provides information and guidance to new mothers about breastfeeding and child nutrition. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $200 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas within the United States by $100 million. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) that would have cut $200 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas within the United States by $100 million. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $10 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides food to low-income children, pregnant mothers, and seniors. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) that would have increased funding by $10 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides food to low-income children, pregnant mothers, and seniors. The amendment would have cut, however, $10 million from an account used to pay the salaries of employees who work for the Farm Service Agency. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Agriculture Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $1 million for the Microbiological Data Program, which tests fruits and vegetables for bacteria that can cause food-borne illnesses This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) that would have increased funding by $1 million for the Microbiological Data Program, which tests fruits and vegetables for bacteria that can cause food-borne illnesses. The amendment would have cut, however, $1 million from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service?s ?buildings and facilities? account. (The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from pests and diseases.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Agriculture Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would allow funding provided by an agriculture bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first submitting a report to Congress justifying such a change. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow funding provided by an agriculture bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first submitting a report to Congress justifying such a change. Such conversion of government jobs to private, federally contracted positions is often referred to as ?insourcing.? This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Agriculture Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have provided $1 million to the Food and Drug Administration to combat outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to E. coli. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that would have provided $1 million to the Food and Drug Administration to combat outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to E. coli. (E. coli is a bacterium found in the fecal matter of farm animals. Certain strains of E. coli have been linked to serious and even deadly cases of food poisoning.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
(H.R. 2112) Legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. In addition to overseeing farm programs, the Agriculture Department funds most food aid and nutritional assistance programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (more commonly known as ?food stamps? or SNAP), for example, is funded through the Agriculture Department. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
(H.R. 2055) On a motion that would have provided $20 million for a veterans? suicide prevention program This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have provided $20 million for a veterans? suicide prevention program. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation providing annual funding for military construction projects and veterans? programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
(H.R. 2055) On an amendment that would have exempted any construction project funded by a military construction and veterans? bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have exempted any construction project funded by a military construction and veterans bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for military construction projects and veterans programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Building and Construction LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
(H.R. 2055) On an amendment that would allow federal agencies to enter into ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) that would allow federal agencies to enter into ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for military construction projects and veterans programs.
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Building and Construction LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
(H. Con. Res. 51) On passage of a resolution that called on President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days of the resolution?s enactment This was a vote on passage of a resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that called on President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days of the resolution?s enactment. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
(H. Res. 292) On passage of a resolution reprimanding President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and calling on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country. This resolution also expressed opposition to the use of U.S ground troops in Libya, or more specifically, ?the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.? This was a vote on passage of a resolution sponsored by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) reprimanding President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and calling on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country. This resolution also expressed opposition to the use of U.S ground troops in Libya, or more specifically, ?the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.? WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
(H. Con. Res. 51, H. Res. 292) Two separate resolutions relating to U.S. military operations in Libya: the first would have required President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days; the second resolution reprimanded President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and called on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country ? On setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to both resolutions This was a vote on a measure setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to two separate resolutions relating to U.S. military operations in Libya. The first resolution, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), would have required President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
(H.R. 2017) Final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
(H.R. 2017) On a motion that would have increased funding for rail and bus transportation security measures by $75 million?but cut funding for a planned research facility that was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased funding for rail and bus transportation security measures by $75 million?but cut funding for a planned research facility (known as the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF) that was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have eliminated federal funding for a program in which the federal government deputizes local law enforcement officers to identify and detain undocumented immigrants. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have eliminated federal funding for a program (known as ?287(g)? in which the federal government deputizes local law enforcement officers to identify and detain undocumented immigrants. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would cut funding for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners by $270 million (TSA screeners are the security personnel at airports who screen passengers as they pass through security before boarding a plane). This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) that would cut funding for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners by $270 million (TSA screeners are the security personnel at airports who screen passengers as they pass through security before boarding a plane). This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used for new leases of buildings in the District of Columbia
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used for new leases of buildings in the District of Columbia. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that would prohibit federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers for collective bargaining activities. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) that would prohibit funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers for collective bargaining activities. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited Homeland Security Department employees appointed by the president from delaying or reversing a decision to comply with a Freedom on Information Act request. (The Freedom of Information Act ensures that citizens have access to government records.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have prohibited Homeland Security Department employees appointed by the president from delaying or reversing a decision to comply with a Freedom on Information Act request. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ensures that citizens have access to government records. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement from using funds provided by a Homeland Security bill to release on bond or parole undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) that would prohibit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using funds provided by a Homeland Security bill to release on bond or parole undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit funding provided by a Homeland Security bill from being allocated to over 300 community organizations which supporters of the amendment contended had some affiliation with ACORN. (ACORN was a coalition of community-based groups that advocated on behalf of the poor which had come under fire from conservatives who had alleged that the group had perpetrated voter fraud.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would prohibit funding provided by a Homeland Security bill from being allocated to over 300 community organizations which supporters of the amendment contended had some affiliation with ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Building and Construction LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have exempted any construction project funded by a Homeland Security bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the locally prevailing wage to workers.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) that would have exempted any construction project funded by a Homeland Security bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the locally prevailing wage to workers. The Labor Department calculates each metro area?s prevailing wage in the following manner: ?We [the Labor Department] first determine if more than 50 percent of the workers in a single classification [of worker] are paid the union wage rate or the same wage rate. If so, then the union or same wage rate prevails for that classification. If not, a weighted average wage rate is calculated.?) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Building and Construction LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill from being used to violate the War Powers Resolution. (The War Powers Resolution requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill from being used to violate the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— USA Intervention in Libya |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would allow funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill to be used for rehiring laid-off firefighters, and preventing such layoffs from occurring in the first place This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Price (D-NC) that would allow funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill to be used for rehiring laid-off firefighters, and preventing such layoffs from occurring in the first place. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit the use of Homeland Security Department funds for participation in the Obama administration?s interagency task force on global climate change This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) that would prohibit the use of Homeland Security Department funds for participation in the Obama administration?s interagency task force on global climate change. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit Homeland Security Department funds from being used to address environmental damage caused by the construction of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) that would prohibit Homeland Security Department funds from being used to address environmental damage caused by the construction of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— USA-Mexico Frontier Issues |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would allow the Homeland Security Department to convert jobs held by federal government employees into private, federally-contracted positions. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow the Homeland Security Department to convert jobs held by federal government employees into private, federally-contracted positions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would allow small and midsized American cities to receive federal funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative. (The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) that would allow small and midsized American cities to receive federal funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would increase by $10 million funding for a border security program that helped residents along the U.S.-Mexico border to communicate via cell phone with the Border Patrol. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) that would increase by $10 million funding for a border security program that helped residents along the U.S.-Mexico border to communicate via cell phone with the Border Patrol. The amendment also would cut $10 million from the Secretary of Homeland Security?s administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would increase funding by $1 million for a program that helps local governments identify undocumented immigrants.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) that would increase funding by $1 million for a program that helps local governments identify undocumented immigrants. The amendment would also cut $1 million from the Secretary of Homeland Security?s administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative by $337 million. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) that would have increased funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative by $337 million. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
(H.R. 2017) Legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs ? Two separate votes: the first on bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Homeland Security bill; the second on passage of the resolution setting the time limit. These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
(H.R. 2017) Legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs ? Two separate votes: the first on bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Homeland Security bill; the second on passage of the resolution setting the time limit. These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
(H.R. 2017) Legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs ? On whether to bring up the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on whether to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. Technically, this vote was on a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
(H.R. 1954) Passage of legislation that would have increased the public debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have increased the U.S. public debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion. When this vote occurred, the federal government?s debt had exceeded its ?statutory limit? ? in other words, the amount of money the country can be in debt. In order for the federal government to borrow more money, it needed to increase its debt limit. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
(S. 990) Final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act? for four years. Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records). This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act? for four years. Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records). HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
(H.R. 1540) Final passage of legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
(H.R. 1540) On a motion that would have increased combat pay for soldiers by $100 per month This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased combat pay for soldiers by $100 per month. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the president to submit to Congress a plan with a timeframe to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the president to submit a separate report to Congress outlining a plan with a timeframe for concluding negotiations ?leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan.? This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) that would have required the president to submit to Congress a plan with a timeframe to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the president to submit a separate report to Congress outlining a plan with a timeframe for concluding negotiations ?leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan.? This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would eliminate all federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) that would eliminate all federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have reduced federal funding for missile defense systems by $100 million.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) that would have reduced federal funding for missile defense systems by $100 million. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have eliminated $150 million in federal funding for Navy warships known as ?LHA 7s? This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that would have eliminated $150 million in federal funding for Navy warships known as LHA 7s. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would eliminate the ?Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund? ? a fund from which members of Congress could funnel money to local projects in their congressional districts.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would eliminate the ?Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund? ? a fund from which members of Congress could funnel money to local projects in their congressional districts. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000 over five years. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000 over five years. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. This was a vote on an amendment by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a plan to withdraw U.S. troops within 60 days of the enactment of the underlying defense bill. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have eliminated a highly controversial provision in a Defense bill that that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces." This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have eliminated a highly controversial provision in a Defense bill that that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces." Critics of this provision argued that it amounted to an open-ended authorization for the president to pursue endless warfare in the pursuit of terrorists. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have established a National Office for Cyberspace to guard against cyber attacks (computer and internet-based warfare) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) that would have established a National Office for Cyberspace to guard against cyber attacks (computer and internet-based warfare). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Cyber Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would prohibit the disturbance of sunken military aircraft only if such aircraft were carrying out non-commercial missions when they were sunk
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) that would prohibit the disturbance of sunken military aircraft only if such aircraft were carrying out non-commercial missions when they were sunk. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to disclose data relating to the maintenance of military aircraft provided that such information would not reveal flight patterns or tactical techniques or procedures. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have required the Defense Department to disclose data relating to the maintenance of military aircraft provided that such information would not reveal flight patterns or tactical techniques or procedures. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would require all foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals (special trials run by the U.S. military, which do not grant suspects the same constitutional rights as suspects tried in U.S. courts). This was an amendment by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) that would require all foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals (special trials run by the U.S. military, which do not grant suspects the same constitutional rights as suspects tried in U.S. courts). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have allowed terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba (a facility operated by the United States) to be transferred to the U.S. and prosecuted in U.S. courts
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) that would have allowed terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba (a facility operated by the United States) to be transferred to the U.S. and prosecuted in U.S. courts. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On an amendment that would eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would require the military?s rules of engagement to ?fully protect the members' [of the armed services?] right to bear arms? and ?authorize the members [of the armed services] to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.?
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) that would require the military?s rules of engagement to ?fully protect the members' [of the armed services?] right to bear arms? and ?authorize the members [of the armed services] to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.? This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Defense Department from making payments to any defense contractor for activities relating to the closure of the shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) that would have prohibited the Defense Department from making payments to any defense contractor for activities relating to the closure of the shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Military Contractors |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have suspended the implementation of Defense Department workforce management policies intended to improve efficiency until the Defense Secretary submits a review of those policies to Congress. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) that would have suspended the implementation of Defense Department workforce management policies intended to improve efficiency until the Defense Secretary submits a review of those policies to Congress. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to conduct an outreach program for women and minority-owned businesses prior to awarding defense contracts. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Defense Department to conduct an outreach program for women and minority-owned businesses prior to awarding defense contracts. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required that any financial savings that resulted from assigning duties which had previously been carried out by contractors to federal government employees be used for deficit reduction. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) that would have required that any financial savings that resulted from assigning duties which had previously been carried out by contractors to federal government employees be used for deficit reduction. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to publicly disclose attempts by senior officials within the department to obtain employment at private defense contractors. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have required the Defense Department to publicly disclose attempts by senior officials within the department to obtain employment at private defense contractors. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Military Contractors |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to ensure that all Defense contractors at military installations in the United States set aside 40 percent their subcontracting work for local qualified subcontractors (subcontractors within 60 miles of the military installation). This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have required the Defense Department to ensure that all Defense contractors at military installations in the United States set aside 40 percent their subcontracting work for local qualified subcontractors (subcontractors within 60 miles of the military installation). This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Military Contractors |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that prohibited federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that prohibited federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have authorized the Defense Department to consider domestic employment as a factor when awarding contracts to outside companies.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that would have authorized the Defense Department to consider domestic employment as a factor when awarding contracts to outside companies. (For example, the Defense Department could take into account whether awarding a contract to a certain company could result in American jobs being moved overseas.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Military Contractors |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Defense Department from entering into ?public-private partnerships? in which work was contracted out to private companies This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) that would have prohibited the Defense Department from entering into ?public-private partnerships? in which work was contracted out to private companies. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have established a pilot program to provide scholarships to military children (children of those enlisted in the U.S. military) with special education needs. The amendment allowed recipients to use these scholarships at public, private, or charter schools.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) that would have established a pilot program to provide scholarships to military children (children of those enlisted in the U.S. military) with special education needs. The pilot program would have been open to 250 children, and provided a scholarship of up to $7,500 per child. The amendment allowed recipients to use these scholarships at public, private, or charter schools. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
(H.R. 1540 ) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the procurement of the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that has been criticized by some Democrats as expensive and ineffective. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the procurement of the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that has been criticized by some Democrats as expensive and ineffective. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
(H.R. 1540) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
(H.R. 1540) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
(H.R. 1216) Final passage of legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year This was a vote on final passage of legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
(H.R.1216) On a motion that would have required that medically underserved communities be given priority with respect to federal funding for graduate medical education.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required that medically underserved communities be given priority with respect to federal funding for graduate medical education. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
(H.R. 1216) On an amendment that barred federal funding for graduate medical education from being used to train physicians to perform abortions This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that barred federal funding for graduate medical education from being used to train physicians to perform abortions. This amendment was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
(H.R. 1216) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO, which conducts studies and investigations on behalf of Congress) to conduct a study on the impact of federal funding for graduate medical education on physician shortages This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO, which conducts studies and investigations on behalf of Congress) to conduct a study on the impact of federal funding for graduate medical education on physician shortages. This amendment was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Funding for Rural Hospitals HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding HEALTH CARE— Native American Health Care |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
(H.R. 1216) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which conducts investigations, audits, and studies on behalf of Congress) to determine the impact of limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year on the number of primary care physicians that could be trained. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which conducts investigations, audits, and studies on behalf of Congress) to determine the impact of limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year on the number of primary care physicians that could be trained. This amendment was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
(H.R. 1216, H.R. 1540) Legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
(H.R. 1216, H.R. 1540) Legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
(H.R. 754) On a motion that would have honored President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, the Navy SEALS, and the intelligence community for their contributions to the killing of Osama Bin Laden?and would also have required intelligence agencies to make the defeat of Al Qaeda their ?highest priority.? This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have honored President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, the Navy SEALS, and the intelligence community for their contributions to the killing of Osama Bin Laden?and would also have required intelligence agencies to make the defeat of Al Qaeda their ?highest priority.?. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
(H.R. 754) On an amendment expressing the ?sense of Congress? that intelligence agencies should make rail security a priority and include funding for rail security in their annual budgets This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carney (D-DE) expressing the ?sense of Congress? that intelligence agencies should make rail security a priority and include funding for rail security in their annual budgets. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
(H.R. 754) On an amendment that would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the House and Senate intelligence committees on human rights violations committed by Argentina?s military government during the 1970s and 1980s. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the House and Senate intelligence committees on human rights violations committed by Argentina?s military government during the 1970s and 1980s. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
(H.R. 754) On an amendment that required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate U.S. intelligence agencies. This was a vote on amendment by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) that required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate U.S. intelligence agencies. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
(H.R. 754) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision in an intelligence bill that required an audit of U.S. intelligence programs This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) that would have eliminated a provision in an intelligence bill that required an audit of U.S. intelligence programs. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
(H.R. 754) Legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
(H.R. 1231) Final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
(H.R. 1231) On a motion that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States. (This requirement was intended to lower domestic gas prices.) The motion would also have required the Secretary of the Interior to reduce the number of ?nonproducing offshore oil and gas leases? (leases which were issued to companies, but were not being used by those companies to actively drill for oil and gas) by 50 percent by 2017. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States. (This requirement was intended to lower domestic gas prices.) The motion would also have required the Secretary of the Interior to reduce the number of ?nonproducing offshore oil and gas leases? (leases which were issued to companies, but were not being used by those companies to actively drill for oil and gas) by 50 percent by 2017. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have banned oil and gas drilling from taking place off the coast of Washington State without the approval of Washington?s governor and state legislature. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) that would have banned oil and gas drilling from taking place off the coast of Washington State without the approval of Washington?s governor and state legislature. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the Northern coast of California
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the Northern coast of California. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have permanently banned oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) that would have permanently banned oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have required all oil and gas companies that were issued leases for oil drilling to outline a ?worst-case scenario? oil spill stemming from the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to submit a plan to contain and clean up the damage stemming from this worst-case scenario. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) that would have required all oil and gas companies that were issued leases for oil drilling to outline a ?worst-case scenario? oil spill stemming from the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to submit a plan to contain and clean up the damage stemming from this worst-case scenario. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that was issued a lease for oil and gas drilling This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that was issued a lease for oil and gas drilling. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have required oil companies seeking new leases for oil and gas drilling to renegotiate previous leases on which they paid no royalties This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have required oil companies seeking new leases for oil and gas drilling to renegotiate previous leases on which they paid no royalties. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have banned oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf if such drilling would ?impede operations? of the U.S. military This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have banned oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf if such drilling would ?impede operations? of the U.S. military. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
(H.R. 1231) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
(H.R. 1231) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
(H.R. 1299) Final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. If the secretary failed to act on a permit within 60 days, it would be ?deemed approved.? In addition, the bill prohibited litigators who successfully sue the federal government over oil drilling projects from receiving attorneys? fees. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
(H.R. 1299) On a motion that would have prohibited oil and gas companies from receiving new oil drilling leases if they had been ordered to pay civil or criminal penalties as a result of an oil spill, and had not yet paid the required fines. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited oil and gas companies from receiving new oil drilling leases if they had been ordered to pay civil or criminal penalties as a result of an oil spill, and had not yet paid the required fines. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have allowed litigators who successfully challenged federal oil drilling policies in court to collect attorneys? fees This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) that would have allowed litigators who successfully challenged federal oil drilling policies in court to collect attorneys? fees. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have allowed district courts outside the Fifth Circuit (which included only Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) to hear civil lawsuits regarding oil-drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) that would have allowed district courts outside the Fifth Circuit (which included only Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) to hear civil lawsuits regarding oil drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
(H.R 1299) On an amendment that would have required all applications for offshore oil drilling permits to include an estimate of the amount of oil and gas expected to be produced from the well, as well as an estimate of the amount by which crude oil and consumer prices would be reduced if the well yielded the estimated amount of oil and gas. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) that would have required all applications for offshore oil drilling permits to include an estimate of the amount of oil and gas expected to be produced from the well, as well as an estimate of the amount by which crude oil and consumer prices would be reduced if the well yielded the estimated amount of oil and gas. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior if the Interior Department lacked the staff and budget needed to review all applications for such permits This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior if the Interior Department lacked the staff and budget needed to review all applications for such permits. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
(H.R. 1229) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a permit for offshore oil drilling until the secretary has certified that the applicant has calculated a ?worst-case scenario? for the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to demonstrate the ability respond immediately and effectively to this worst-case scenario. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a permit for offshore oil drilling until the secretary has certified that the applicant has calculated a ?worst-case scenario? for the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to demonstrate the ability respond immediately and effectively to this worst-case scenario. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have implemented new oil drilling safety standards proposed by a commission on the 2010 BP oil spill disaster, including new standards for blowout preventers (which monitor and control oil wells), as well as requirements for cementing and well design (in which cement seals the well and prevents such blowouts). This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have implemented new oil drilling safety standards proposed by a commission on the 2010 BP oil spill disaster, including new standards for blowout preventers (which monitor and control oil wells), as well as requirements for cementing and well design (in which cement seals the well and prevents such blowouts). In addition, the amendment required a third party to certify that all safety requirements were being adhered to. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to consult with an independent drilling safety organization not affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute when reviewing oil-drilling permits This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to consult with an independent drilling safety organization not affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute when reviewing oil drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have required the Interior Department to ensure that oil-drilling projects comply with all environmental and fisheries laws when reviewing applications for drilling permits This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have required the Interior Department to ensure that oil-drilling projects comply with all environmental and fisheries laws when reviewing applications for drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
(H.R. 1230) Final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
(H.R. 1230) On a motion that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
(H.R. 1230) On an amendment that would have postponed oil drilling at a site off Virginia?s coast until the Secretary of Defense certified that would not impede naval or other military operations. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have postponed oil drilling at a site off Virginia?s coast until the Secretary of Defense certified that would not impede naval or other military operations. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
(H.R. 1230) On an amendment that would have required additional environmental studies to be conducted on the impact of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have required additional environmental studies to be conducted on the impact of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
(H.R. 1229, H.R. 1230) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
(H.R. 1229, H.R. 1230) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation (H.R. 1229) requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill (H.R. 1230) requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. Under the first bill (H.R. 1229), if the Secretary failed to act on a drilling permit within 60 days, it would be ?deemed approved.? ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
(H.R. 3) Final passage of legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
(H.R. 3) On a motion that would have prohibited the federal government from gaining access to the private medical records of victims of rape and incest This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited the federal government from gaining access to the private medical records of victims of rape and incest. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation prohibiting federal funds from being used for any health care coverage that includes abortion services. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
(H.R. 1214) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
(H.R. 1214) On a motion that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website a list of the school districts that would lose federal funding for school health centers as a result of legislation repealing a provision of major health care reform law that provided funding for those health centers. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website a list of the school districts that would lose federal funding for school health centers as a result of legislation repealing a provision of major health care reform law that provided funding for those health centers. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation repealing a provision of the 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?that provided federal funds for such school-based health care centers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
(H.R. 1214) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which carries out studies, audits, and investigations for Congress) to conduct a study on which school districts were most in need of new or renovated school-based health care centers. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which carries out studies, audits, and investigations for Congress) to conduct a study on which school districts were most in need of new or renovated school-based health care centers. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of the 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?that provided federal funds for such school-based health care centers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
(H.R. 1214) On an amendment that would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to post on its website the amount of funding rescinded from school-based health care centers as a result of repealing a provision of a major health care law that provided federal funding for those health centers. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to post on its website the amount of funding rescinded from school-based health care centers as a result of repealing a provision of a major health care law that provided federal funding for those health centers. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of the 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?that provided federal funds for such school-based health care centers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
(H.R. 3) Legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill. This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
(H.R. 1213) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health insurance ?exchanges?--regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance. This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health insurance ?exchanges?--regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance. The 2010 health care reform measure?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near-universal health care coverage?the federal government was set to provide federal funding to states to establish health insurance exchanges in 2014. This bill rescinded federal funding for those state-based exchanges. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
(H.R. 1213) On a motion that would have barred health insurance companies from participating in state-based health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) if they denied coverage to individuals with cancer or any other pre-existing medical condition. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have barred health insurance companies from participating in state-based health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) if they denied coverage to individuals with cancer or any other pre-existing medical condition. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
(H.R. 1213) On an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on delays and reduced in enrollment in health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of revoking federal funding that had been provided for those exchanges. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on delays and reduced in enrollment in health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of revoking federal funding that had been provided for those exchanges. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
(H.R. 1213) On an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which states were expected to have difficulties establishing health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) without federal funding. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which states were expected to have difficulties establishing health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) without federal funding. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
(H.R. 1213) On an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website the amount of funding that would be cut from health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of eliminating federal funds for those exchanges. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website the amount of funding that would be cut from state-based health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of eliminating federal funds for those exchanges. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
(H.R. 1213, H.R. 1214) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance), as well as a separate bill repealing a provision of the same health care law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills?both of which repealed provisions of a major health care reform law that President Obama signed into law in 2010. The first bill repealed a provision of the health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance). The second bill repealed a provision that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
(H.R. 1213, H.R. 1214) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance), as well as a separate bill repealing a provision of the same health care law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills?both of which repealed provisions of a major health care reform law that President Obama signed into law in 2010. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The first bill repealed a provision of the health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance). The second bill repealed a provision that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
(H. Con. Res. 34) Final passage of a budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system This was a vote on final passage of the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.) HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
(H. Con. Res. 34) On an amendment sponsored by House Democrats that would have allowed income tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, cut Defense Department spending by $89 billion over 10 years, cut agricultural subsidies by $20 billion over 10 years, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. This was a vote on a Democratic amendment that would have allowed income tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, cut Defense Department spending by $89 billion over 10 years, cut agricultural subsidies by $20 billion over 10 years, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. This amendment was offered to a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
(H. Con. Res. 34) On an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that would have allowed tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have ended tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and power plants, implemented a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers, and increased funding for clean energy, affordable housing, and medical research programs. This was a vote on an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that would have allowed tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have ended tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and power plants, implemented a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers, and increased funding for clean energy, affordable housing, and medical research programs. This amendment was offered to a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
(H. Con. Res. 34) On an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have allowed income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have increased funding for food stamps, job training programs, food safety inspections, community health care centers, and financial aid for low-income college students. This was a vote on an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that would have allowed income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have increased funding for food stamps, job training programs, food safety inspections, community health care centers, and financial aid for low-income college students. This amendment was offered to a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
(H. Con. Res. 36) Passage of legislation that would effectively eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions. This was a vote on passage of legislation that would effectively eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
(H. Con. Res. 35) Passage of legislation that would effectively defund the landmark 2010 health care reform law that expanded health insurance coverage to 31 million previously uninsured Americans, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions This was a vote on passage of legislation that would effectively defund the landmark 2010 health care reform law that expanded health insurance coverage to 31 million previously uninsured Americans, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. The health care law also imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
(H.R. 1473) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
(H. Con. Res. 34) A budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
(H. Con. Res. 34) A budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
(H.R. 1217) Final passage of legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
(H.R. 1217) On a motion that would have allowed a preventive health care program to continue exclusively for senior citizens This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have allowed the Prevention and Public Health Fund to continue serving senior citizens. This motion was offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund entirely. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
(H.R. 1217) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of a preventive health care program on states and local communities. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) that would have required the Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of the Prevention and Public Health Fund on states and local communities. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
(H.R. 1217) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of a preventive health care program on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of the Prevention and Public Health Fund on ?preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
(H.R. 1473) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
(H.R. 1473) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
(H.R. 1217) Legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
(H.R. 1217) Legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion over ten years in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion over ten years in preventive health care initiatives. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
(H.R. 1363) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week. When the House voted on this bill, congressional leaders had already reached an agreement with President Obama on a long-term government-funding bill that would last through September 2011 (the end of the federal government?s fiscal year). However, the long-term funding measure had not yet been written in legislative language. Thus, the House brought up this short-term bill to prevent the federal government from shutting down while the long-term government-funding agreement was written in bill form. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
(H. J. Res 37) Final passage of legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their web sites to download more quickly.) This was a vote on final passage of legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. ?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their websites to download more quickly. For example, Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon could offer faster service to web sites that could afford to pay for it. Web sites that could not afford to pay for this service, however, would download more slowly. Thus, network neutrality rules were intended to prevent the evolution of a ?two-tiered? Internet system. Under such a system, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for service that allowed their websites to download quickly. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl.)_ GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Internet Service Providers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Equal Access to the Internet for Everyone |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
(H. J. Res 37) On tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules. This was a vote on tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
(H. J. Res 37) Legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their web sites to download more quickly.)? On a procedural vote allowing the House to bring up the bill for debate
This was a procedural vote on whether to bring up legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. This vote was on a ?question of consideration??literally whether or not to ?consider? the resolution. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Internet Service Providers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Equal Access to the Internet for Everyone |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
(H.R. 910) Final passage of legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions This was a vote on final passage of legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
(H.R. 910) On a motion that would have authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to enforce regulations protecting vulnerable children (such as those with asthma) and seniors from air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to enforce regulations protecting vulnerable children (such as those with asthma) and seniors from air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation that prohibited the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry HEALTH CARE— Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
(H.R. 1363) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans as well as clean water programs This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans as well as clean water programs. While the underlying bill continued federal funding for most programs and government agencies for one week, it funded the Defense Department for six months (through the end of the federal government?s fiscal year). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
(H.R. 1363) On a motion to recommit that would have guaranteed that all military personnel would be paid through September 30, 2011, even in the event that the federal government shut down. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have guaranteed that all military personnel would be paid through September 30, 2011, even in the event that the federal government shut down. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans as well as clean water programs. WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
(H.R. 1363) On tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules. This was a vote on tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
(H.R. 1363) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs. While the underlying bill continued federal funding for most programs and government agencies for one week, it funded the Defense Department for six months (through the end of the federal government?s fiscal year). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
(H.R. 1363) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. While the underlying bill continued federal funding for most programs and government agencies for one week, it funded the Defense Department for six months (through the end of the federal government?s fiscal year). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but would have exempted farms and small businesses from those regulations This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but would have exempted farms and small businesses from those regulations. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study determining if regulating greenhouse gas emissions would harm U.S. efforts to remain economically competitive in the world This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study determining if regulating greenhouse gas emissions would harm U.S. efforts to remain economically competitive in the world. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator and Secretary of Defense determined that climate change jeopardized national security This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator and Secretary of Defense determined that climate change jeopardized national security. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such regulation could reduce the demand for oil. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such regulation could reduce the demand for oil. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such emissions posed a danger to public health. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such emissions posed a danger to public health. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
Number:236
(H.R. 910) On an amendment stating that ?Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.? This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stating that ?Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.? This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at the federal level. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to provide assistance to states that had chosen to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to provide assistance to states that had chosen to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at the federal level. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment also would have required the EPA?prior to issuing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases?to hold a 30 day ?public comment period? in which industries affected by such regulation (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying bill banned the EPA from regulating such gases. This amendment would have eliminated that prohibition, and instead required the EPA to hold a 30 day ?public comment period? in which industries affected by greenhouse gas regulations (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials. The amendment required that this public comment period be held prior to implementing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases. In addition, the amendment would have required the EPA to conduct a study on the ?adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation? of such regulations. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment would also have required the EPA to conduct a study on the long-term effects of banning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying bill banned the EPA from regulating such gases. This amendment would have eliminated that prohibition, and instead required the EPA to conduct a study the long-term effects of banning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
(H.R. 910) Legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
(H.R. 910) Legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
(H. J. Res. 37) Legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
(H. J. Res. 37) Legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
(H.R. 1255) Final passage of legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law This was a vote on final passage of legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill by April 6, 2011) funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
(H.R. 1255) On a motion that would have prohibited members of Congress from being paid retroactively following a federal government shutdown. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited members of Congress from being paid retroactively following a federal government shutdown. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
(H.R. 1255) Legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the underlying bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill (by April 6, 2011) funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
(H.R. 1255) Legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the underlying bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill (by April 6, 2011) funding the federal government for the remainder of its fiscal year, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
(H.R. 658) Final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Specifically, the bill reinstated rule requiring that workers who did not vote at all in union elections would be counted as having voting against unionizing. The unionization rule reinstated by the bill had been in place for more than 70 years until the Obama administration overturned the policy in 2009. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
(H.R. 658) On a motion that would have deployed federal air marshals on all high-risk passenger airplane flights. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have deployed federal air marshals on all high-risk passenger airplane flights. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to publish cost and benefit studies on the effects of its regulations on each segment of the aviation industry. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to publish cost and benefit studies on the effects of its regulations on each segment of the aviation industry. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the FAA, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. The amendment did not define the different ?segments? of the aviation administration, but left that definition to the discretion of the FAA administrator. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have preserved the ability of FAA employees to form a union This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) that would have preserved the ability of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees to form a union. Specifically, the underlying bill re-imposed a rule requiring that workers who did not vote at all in union elections would be counted as having voting against unionizing. This amendment would have removed that provision from the bill. The unionization rule reinstated by the underlying bill had been in place for more than 70 years until the Obama administration overturned the policy in 2009. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have prohibited public works projects funded by a Federal Aviation Administration bill from complying with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would have prohibited public works projects funded by a Federal Aviation Administration bill from complying with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Specifically, Sessions? amendment would have prohibited the FAA bill?s funds from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have allowed airports to implement mandatory nighttime curfews (which would have banned most air traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) that would have allowed airports to implement mandatory nighttime curfews (which would have banned most air traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Under the amendment, only airports which had at least a partial curfew in place prior to 1990 would be permitted to impose a curfew. ENVIRONMENT— Noise Pollution |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have authorized Doña Ana County in New Mexico to enter into a land transfer agreement allowing the county to build an alternative access road to its airport This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) that would have authorized Doña Ana County in New Mexico to enter into a land transfer agreement allowing the county to build an alternative access road to its airport. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
(H.R. 1255) Legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law ? On a procedural vote allowing House leaders to bring up the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the underlying bill This was a vote on whether to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law. This vote was on a ?question of consideration??literally whether or not to ?consider? the resolution. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have prohibited Federal Aviation Administration employees from using time spent at work for union-related activities. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) that would have prohibited Federal Aviation Administration employees from using time spent at work for union-related activities. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have required ticket agents and all other sellers of airplane tickets to disclose the cost of checking baggage. The amendment would also have required that passengers receive refunds for lost baggage that had been checked on a flight. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) that would have required ticket agents and all other sellers of airplane tickets to disclose the cost of checking baggage. Under the amendment, airlines would also have been required to disclose such fees to aggregators (such as Orbitz or Expedia) with which they had a contract. The amendment would also have required that passengers receive refunds for lost baggage that had been checked on a flight. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Aviation Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have established a special rule-making committee within the Federal Aviation Administration to recommend regulations ensuring that aircrafts are properly equipped with technology that maintains pilot visibility when ?dense, continuous smoke is present in the cockpit of the aircraft.? (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that would have established a special rule-making committee within the Federal Aviation Administration to recommend regulations ensuring that aircrafts are properly equipped with technology that maintains pilot visibility when ?dense, continuous smoke is present in the cockpit of the aircraft.? (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Aviation Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have required mechanics working as federally contracted employees at aircraft repair stations to undergo criminal background checks This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have required mechanics working as federally contracted employees at aircraft repair stations to undergo criminal background checks. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Airport Security Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have required the Federal Aviation Administration to study alternatives to its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)
This was an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have required the Federal Aviation Administration to study alternatives to its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. ENVIRONMENT— Noise Pollution |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
(H.R.658) On an amendment blocking new federal regulation of lithium battery shipments. The amendment contained also contained a completely separate provision shielding airlines and airports from negligence lawsuits relating to their safety management systems. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) blocking new federal regulation of lithium battery shipments. The amendment contained also contained a completely separate provision shielding airlines and airports from negligence lawsuits relating to their safety management systems.This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
(H.R. 872) Final passage of legislation eliminating a federal requirement that farms apply for a permit in order to use pesticides that have been approved for use by the federal government This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation eliminating a federal requirement that farms apply for a permit in order to use pesticides that have been approved for use by the federal government. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
(H.R. 658) Legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill. This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Specifically, the bill imposed a new rule requiring that workers who did not vote at all in union elections would be counted as having voting against unionizing. The underlying bill also cut $2 billion in federal funding for making improvements at U.S. airports. Overall, the bill cut $4 billion in federal funding for FAA operations?reducing total FAA funding to 2008 levels. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
(H.R. 417) Final passage of legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) This was a vote on final passage of legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
(H.R. 471) On a motion that would have eliminated funding for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated funding for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
(H.R. 471) On an amendment that would have redirected funding intended for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia to charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.) This was a vote on an amendment by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) that would have redirected funding intended for a school voucher program ($20 million annually) in the District of Columbia to charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.) This amendment was offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
(H.R. 471) Legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill. This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
(H.R. 471) Legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill. This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
(H.R. 839) Final passage of legislation eliminating the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
(H.R. 893) On a motion that would have enabled people currently serving in the military and families of those who died while serving in the armed forces to benefit from a program which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have enabled people currently serving in the military and families of those who died while serving in the armed forces (known as ?gold star families?) to benefit from the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
(H.R. 839) On an amendment that would have listed the number of home mortgages in each state that were modified by the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have listed the number of home mortgages in each state that were modified by the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
(H.R. 839) On an amendment that would have required the Treasury Department to carry out a study identifying which aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were successful. HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Treasury Department to carry out a study identifying which aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were successful. HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
(H.R. 839) On an amendment detailing a number of Republican criticisms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative which Republicans sought to eliminate?and which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. For example, the amendment noted that while the program was intended to help 3 to 4 million homeowners, only 607,600 mortgage modifications had been made thus far. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) that detailed a number of Republican criticisms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
(H. Con. Res. 28) Final passage of a resolution that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2011 This was a vote on final passage of a resolution that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2011. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
(H.R. 1076) Final passage of legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR). Republicans had long viewed NPR--which received federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?as harboring a liberal bias. After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, they drafted legislation to cut off all federal funds for the organization. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
(H.R. 1076) On a motion that would have allowed National Public Radio to continue receiving federal funding exclusively for the purpose of broadcasting AMBER alerts, which disseminate information on missing children. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have allowed National Public Radio (NPR) to continue receiving federal funding exclusively for the purpose of broadcasting AMBER alerts, which disseminate information on missing children. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation eliminating federal funding for NPR. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
(H.R. 1076) Legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR). Republicans had long viewed NPR--which received federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?as harboring a liberal bias. After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, they drafted legislation to cut off all federal funds for the organization. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
(H.R. 1076) Legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR). If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. Republicans had long viewed NPR--which received federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?as harboring a liberal bias. After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, they drafted legislation to cut off all federal funds for the organization. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
(H.R. 861) Final passage of legislation eliminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
(H.R. 861) On a motion that would have allowed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to continue operating for the purposes of renovating abandoned properties in rural communities. The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have allowed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to continue operating for the purposes of renovating abandoned properties in rural communities. (The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation eliminating the NSP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
(H.R. 861) On an amendment that would have listed the number of vacant homes in each state that were eligible to be rehabilitated or demolished under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have listed the number of vacant homes in each state that were eligible to be rehabilitated or demolished under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This amendment was offered a bill eliminating the NSP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
(H.R. 861) On an amendment that would have required a study to be conducted determining the number of foreclosed and abandoned homes that would not be purchased or rehabilitated in each congressional district as a result of terminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a study determining the number of foreclosed and abandoned homes that would not be purchased or rehabilitated in each congressional district as a result of terminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating the NSP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
(H.R. 861) On an amendment that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inform all recipients of funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that the program had been terminated. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to inform all recipients of funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that the program had been terminated. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. The amendment also instructed HUD to announce that members of Congress could be contacted for assistance in mitigating home foreclosures. This amendment was offered to a bill eliminating the NSP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
(H.R. 861) On an amendment stating that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program helped local communities hurt by home foreclosures, and supported employment in those communities. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) stating that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program helped local communities hurt by home foreclosures, and supported employment in those communities. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating the NSP. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
(H.R. 861) On a motion that would have effectively preserved a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes by killing legislation that would have eliminated the program. Description:This was a vote on a motion that would have effectively preserved a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes by killing legislation that would have eliminated the program (known as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, or NSP). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
(H.R. 861, H.R. 839) Legislation eliminating a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes, as well as a separate bill eliminating a program intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two bills relating to federal policy on home foreclosure. The first bill eliminated a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. The second bill eliminated a program intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
(H. Con. Res. 30) On a resolution providing for an adjournment of Congress during the week of March 21-March 25, 2011. This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of Congress during the week of March 21-March 25, 2011. Such resolutions are known as ?adjournment resolutions,? and are not debatable under House rules. Thus, no members spoke in favor or against the resolution. Generally, the majority party votes in favor of adjournment resolutions, while members of the minority party vote against them. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
(H. J. Res. 48) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks?and cutting $6 billion in federal expenditures, including funding for state law enforcement programs, the National Park Service, the Census Bureau, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. This short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR??was intended to keep the federal government operating while negotiators from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama administration attempted to reach an agreement on a long-term budget measure. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
(H. J. Res. 48) On a motion that would have prohibited a short-term government funding bill from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited a short-term government funding from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. Such short-term funding bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
(H. J. Res. 48) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. This short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR??was intended to keep the federal government operating while negotiators from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama administration attempted to reach an agreement on a long-term budget measure. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
(H.R. 836) Final passage of legislation eliminating a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
(H.R. 836) On a motion that would have enabled veterans and those serving in the military to benefit from a program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have enabled veterans and those serving in the military to benefit from a federal subsidized loan program for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
(H.R. 836) On an amendment that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to announce on its web site of the termination of a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. The amendment also required HUD to instruct the public to contact their members of Congress for assistance if they were unable to pay their home mortgages. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to announce on its web site of the termination of a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. The amendment also required HUD to instruct the public to contact their members of Congress for assistance if they were unable to pay their home mortgages. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
(H.R. 830) Final passage of legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
(H.R. 830) On a motion that would have enabled seniors to continue to benefit from a home loan refinancing program which helped homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have enabled seniors to continue to benefit from a federal home loan refinancing program. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home. The motion to recommit would have allowed this program to continue exclusively for homeowners who were 62 years of age or older, as opposed to terminating it for everyone (as the underlying bill called for). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
(H.R. 830) On an amendment requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development to post on its website a note stating that individuals seeking help with their home mortgages should contact their member of Congress. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to post on its website a note stating that individuals seeking help with their home mortgages should contact their member of Congress. Specifically, the amendment provided that HUD?s statement should read: ?If you owe more on your mortgage than your home is worth, please contact your member of Congress for assistance.'' This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating and FHA program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
(H.R. 830) On an amendment that would have allowed the Federal Housing Administration to facilitate voluntary home loan refinancing agreements between lenders and homeowners. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steven Lynch (D-MA) that would have allowed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to facilitate voluntary home loan refinancing agreements between lenders and homeowners. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating and FHA program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
(H.R. 830) Legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
(H.R. 830) Legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The underlying bill eliminated a federal program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
(H.R. 525) Final passage of legislation making veterinarians eligible for federal loan repayment programs. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation making veterinarians eligible for federal loan repayment programs. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
(H.R. 4) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. This bill also cut subsidies provided by the health care law for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. The 1099 provision was included in the health care law to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage. It later became widely viewed by members of both parties, however, as overly burdensome for small businesses. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
(H.R. 4) On tabling (killing) an effort to appeal a ruling that a Democratic motion violated the rules of the House of Representatives. The Democratic motion would have restored subsidies?which were cut by the underlying bill?for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance, and eliminated tax benefits for oil and gas companies.
This was a vote a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal a ruling that a Democratic motion to recommit violated the rules of the House of Representatives. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This Democratic motion to recommit would have restored subsidies (which were cut by the underlying bill) for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance, and eliminated tax benefits for oil and gas companies. (The motion was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. As stated above, the measure also cut subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health insurance.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
(H.R. 662) On a motion that would have rescinded all funding for the planning, design, or construction of the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska. This motion was offered to legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have rescinded all funding for the planning, design, or construction of the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
(H.R. 4) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies enabling uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. This bill also reduced subsidies provided by the health care law for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. The 1099 provision was included in the health care law to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage. It later became widely viewed by members of both parties, however, as overly burdensome for small businesses. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
(H.R. 4) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies enabling uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. This bill also reduced subsidies provided by the health care law for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. The 1099 provision was included in the health care law to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage. It later became widely viewed by members of both parties, however, as overly burdensome for small businesses. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
(H.R. 662) Legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011. (This bill extended the legal authority for those programs to continue through September 30, 2011.) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on an amendment setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011. This bill extended the legal authority for those programs to continue through September 30, 2011. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
(H. J. Res. 44) Final passage of legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011. The short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR,? also cut $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
(H. J. Res. 44) On a motion that would have eliminated all federal tax benefits provided to oil and gas companies. This motion was offered to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated all federal tax benefits provided to oil and gas companies. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
(H. J. Res. 44) Legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011. The short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR,? cut $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
(H. J. Res. 44) Legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR,? also cut $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
(H.R. 1) Final passage of legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps (which provide nutritional assistance to the poor), community health centers, Pell Grants for low?income college students, and funding for state job training programs
This was vote on final passage of legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. For example, the bill cut funding from environmental protection programs, food stamps?which provide nutritional assistance to the poor?as well as community health centers, scientific research, Pell Grants for low?income college students, the National Institutes of Health, federal aid for state law enforcement programs, and funding for state job training programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Community Health Center Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
(H.R. 1) On a motion that would have increased funding for Pell Grants by $39 million. (Pell Grants provide federal financial aid to low-income college students.)
This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would have increased funding for Pell Grants by $39 million. (Pell Grants provide federal financial aid to low-income college students.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a law requiring Texas to maintain funding for education at 2010 levels or above in order to receive $830 million in federal aid for education.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a law requiring Texas to maintain funding for education at 2010 levels or above in order to receive $830 million in federal aid for education. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. King urged support for his amendment: ? The Davis-Bacon Act is an old and archaic act that was generated during the Depression era, the early years of the Depression era, in about 1931?.I have dealt underneath this law for my working life as a construction contractor? Do we want to create jobs or do we want to cost jobs? Do we want to build 4 miles of road under Davis-Bacon or do we want to build five? Do we want to build four schools or do we want to build five? Do we want to have an inflation of wages by an average of 22 percent? Do we want to see the price go up?? LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $50 million in federal funding for oil and gas research at the Energy Department.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carney (D-DE) that would have eliminated $50 million in federal funding for oil and gas research at the Energy Department. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Health and Human Services Department to implement rules relating to an ?essential benefits package??the benefits all health insurance plans must provide to their enrollees under a major health care law enacted in 2010.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Health and Human Services Department to implement rules relating to an ?essential benefits package??the benefits all health insurance plans must provide to their enrollees under a major health care law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose stricter limits on ?particulate matter??an air pollutant more commonly known as ?soot.?
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose stricter limits on ?particulate matter??an air pollutant more commonly known as ?soot.? This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to designate national monuments on federal land.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to designate national monuments on federal land. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight?which was established by the Obama administration to enforce private health insurance companies? compliance with a major health care law.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO)?which was established by the Obama administration to enforce private health insurance companies? compliance with a major health care law signed into law by President Obama in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement or maintain a searchable public consumer safety information database.
This was an amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement or maintain a searchable public consumer safety information database. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. The public consumer safety database was maintained by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)?the government agency charged with protecting the public from consumer products that pose ?unreasonable risks of injury or death?? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify coal ash--a bi-product of burning coal for electricity--as hazardous waste.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify coal ash (also referred to as ?fly ash)--a bi-product of burning coal for electricity--as hazardous waste. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke permits given for mountaintop mining projects. (The EPA was authorized to revoke permits if it determined that such mining posed an environmental threat to nearby water sources, wildlife, and fisheries.)
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke permits given for mountaintop mining projects. The EPA was authorized to revoke permits if it determined that such mining posed an environmental threat to nearby water sources, wildlife, and fisheries. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. McKinley urged support for his amendment: ?On January 13, 2011, the EPA took an unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued 4-year-old permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia?.EPA's veto at Spruce mine caused the loss of 253 mining jobs and 298 indirect jobs in West Virginia. In addition, it prevented the investment of nearly $250 million. The EPA's action has had a chilling effect on many types of companies, all of which rely on the certainty of the permitting process in order to make crucial business planning decisions. It's virtually impossible for companies to take the necessary steps to obtain financing and create jobs if they must endure the threat of retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow them to do business.? ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement a new Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow the sale of gasoline with a higher proportion of ethanol.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement a new Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow the sale of gasoline with a higher proportion of ethanol. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to provide ?step increases? in federal workers? salaries. Step increases refer to automatic pay-raises given to federal employees every one to three years.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to provide ?step increases? in federal workers? salaries. Step increases refer to automatic pay-raises given to federal employees every one to three years. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the United Nations panel on climate change.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the United Nations panel on climate change?the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. (The IPCC, along with former Vice President Al Gore, won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change in 2007.) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS--a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to administer ?catch shares programs? (in which fisherman purchase a fishing permit, and only those who buy this permit are allowed to catch a portion of fish).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out ?catch shares programs? (in which fisherman purchase a fishing permit, and only those who buy this permit are allowed to catch a portion of fish). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to review permits for mountaintop coal mining in order to ensure that they were not polluting nearby rivers, lakes, and streams.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review permits for mountaintop coal mining in order to ensure that they were not polluting nearby rivers, lakes, and streams. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Griffith urged support for his amendment: ?President Johnson had a war on poverty. There are some in my district and in Appalachia who believes that President Obama and his EPA have a war for poverty in the Appalachian region?.There is a bumper sticker that is very popular now in my district. It says if you think coal is ugly, wait until you see poverty. There are some who believe--and I think that there are some in Washington who think--that southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia should just be a giant park for rich folks to visit, and that those of us who live there, the folks in Washington think, ought to be happy to have the jobs changing the sheets for the rich folks. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have reduced funding for the Defense Department back to 2008 levels (which would have cut more than $50 billion in Defense spending).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee that would have reduced funding for the Defense Department back to 2008 levels (which would have cut more than $50 billion in Defense spending). This amendment was offered to a ?continuing resolution? which funded federal programs, departments, and agencies through September 2011--and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish an office focusing on climate change science within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the federal agency that monitors the conditions of the atmosphere and oceans).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish an office focusing on climate change science (the National Climate Service) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA--the federal agency that monitors the conditions of the atmosphere and oceans). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for ?project labor agreements??collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors which establish the terms of employment for construction projects.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for ?project labor agreements? or PLAs?collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors which establish the terms of employment for construction projects. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Guinta urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment simply states no government money can be used to pay for any project that requires a PLA. This solves a significant problem. This is not against our unions. It is about providing equal footing between union and nonunion contractors. Considering the massive debt and deficit we are now struggling under, I feel we can't afford at this point to waste more taxpayer dollars. My goal here is to get more effective and efficient government. This amendment creates a level playing field that encourages fair and open competition for federal construction contracts funded by this bill.? LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for the construction of an ethanol blender pump (which allows drivers to choose different fuels with varying levels of ethanol at gas stations), or an ethanol storage facility.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) prohibiting federal funds from being used for the construction of an ethanol blender pump (which allows drivers to choose different fuels with varying levels of ethanol at gas stations), or an ethanol storage facility. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Flake urged support for his amendment: ??The taxpayers have subsidized ethanol for far too long. This amendment will simply bring that slowly to a stop.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for renovation or construction at the United Nations headquarters.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) prohibiting federal funds) from being used for renovation or construction at the United Nations (U.N.) headquarters. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Stearns urged support for his amendment: ?Now, the renovations that are occurring on the U.N. ultimately are necessary, but the cost that is occurring is not?.I want to be clear that?this amendment is not to obstruct the U.N. from making a safe environment for the workers and the visitors that come there but to encourage reform and use best business practices considering that the taxpayers are funding about a quarter of the amount of money they're spending for renovations.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in Florida?s lakes, rivers, and streams.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in Florida?s lakes, rivers, and streams. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish health insurance ?exchanges? where uninsured Americans could purchase health insurance.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish health insurance ?exchanges? where uninsured Americans could purchase health insurance. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in the Chesapeake Bay (which is located in Maryland and Virginia.).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in the Chesapeake Bay (which is located in Maryland and Virginia.). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Goodlatte (R-VA) urged support for his amendment: ?The EPA has proposed arbitrary limits on the amounts of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay and how these nutrients enter the bay?.These overzealous regulations will affect everyone who lives, works, and farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and the cost of complying with these requirements will be devastating during our current economic downturn, resulting in many billions of dollars in economic losses to States, cities, towns, farms and other businesses, large and small.? ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation preventing toxic waste from coal mines from contaminating nearby rivers and streams.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation preventing toxic waste from coal mines from contaminating nearby rivers and streams. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have effectively limited the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe to 35,000.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have effectively limited the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe to 35,000. (Technically, the amendment would have prohibited funds provided by a ?continuing resolution??which funded the federal government through September 2011, and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs?from being used to keep more than 35,000 American troops stationed in Europe.) WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for the Defense Department?s ?official representation? activities?which included hosting social events such as dinners for military leaders of other countries.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) prohibiting federal funds from being used for the Defense Department?s (DOD) ?official representation? activities?which included hosting social events such as dinners for military leaders of other countries. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from using federal funds to collect information on individuals who bought multiple semi-automatic rifles or shotguns.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) amendment prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) and Explosives from using federal funds to collect information on individuals who bought multiple semi-automatic rifles or shotguns. The ATF was established to protect American communities from the illegal sale or trafficking of guns, tobacco, alcohol, and explosives. This agency had asked for such authority to track sales of multiple firearms in December 2010. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Blumenauer urged support for his amendment: ?No serious effort to reduce the federal government is complete without addressing agricultural subsidies. Even in time of record high farm prices and profits, we still gave $16 billion in subsidies last year. There are no meaningful limits?.This amendment would establish a hard limit of $250,000 per entity?.I strongly urge that you join with me?to establish this limit, save $100 million this year and more in the future, and start us on a path of reform?? CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation which determined where off-road vehicles could be used in national forests.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation which determined where off-road vehicles could be used in national forests. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
We've chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn't truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, which examined the possibility of removing four dams on the Klamath River (which flows from southeastern Oregon to Northern California).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, which examined the possibility of removing four dams on the Klamath River (which flows from southeastern Oregon to Northern California). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a legal requirement that health insurance companies must spend 80-85% (depending on the size of the company) of the money they collect from insurance premiums on health care services, and no more than 15% to 20% on administrative costs. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a legal requirement that health insurance companies must spend 80-85% (depending on the size of the company) of the money they collect from insurance premiums on health care services, and no more than 15% to 20% on administrative costs. This requirement, known as the ?medical loss ratio,? was part of a major health care reform law signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. . This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to give new leases?under which recipients paid no royalties?to oil and gas companies to drill for oil on public lands.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to give new leases?under which recipients paid no royalties?to oil and gas companies to drill for oil on public lands. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Markey urged support for his amendment: ??We all agree that we have to do some serious work to reduce the deficit. But we need to start by first eliminating unnecessary taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies?.oil companies are now drilling for free on public lands offshore in the Gulf of Mexico?. the American people currently stand to lose as much as $53 billion in royalty payments over the life of these leases?.And with oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public lands for free and take all of the profit for themselves and giving nothing back to the American taxpayer. This amendment is very simple. It says to these companies we will allow you to continue to drill and not even pay any royalties, but we're not going to give you an opportunity to bid on any new leases on public lands in our country.? CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce a law which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC?which regulates interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas) exclusive authority to govern the operations, building, or expansion of liquid natural gas terminals. Natural gas terminals are essentially ports for natural gas that has been turned into liquid for the purposes of storage and transportation.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Wu (D-OR) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce a law which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC?which regulates interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas) exclusive authority to govern the operation, building, or expansion of liquid natural gas terminals. Natural gas terminals are essentially ports for natural gas that has been turned into liquid for the purposes of storage and transportation. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to pay U.S. dues to the United Nations.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to pay U.S. dues to the United Nations (U.N.). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut 3.5% of Defense Department and Homeland Security Department spending from a ?continuing resolution? which funded the federal government through September 2011
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) that would have cut 3.5% of Defense Department and Homeland Security Department spending from a ?continuing resolution,? which funded the federal government through September 2011. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas (which was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas (which was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Biohazards |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut 5.5% of all federal non-military spending?and11% of all legislative branch spending (which funded the operations of Congress) from a ?continuing resolution? which funded the federal government through September 2011.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that would have cut 5.5% of all non-military spending and 11% of all legislative branch spending (which funded the operations of Congress) from a ?continuing resolution? which funded the federal government through September 2011. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (assault vehicles designed by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the ?Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program? (a missile defense system designed to defend against short to medium-range missiles).
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (assault vehicles designed by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the ?Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program (SLAMRAAM--a missile defense system designed to defend against short to medium-range missiles). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $150 million in funding for Brazil?s cotton industry.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would have eliminated $150 million in funding for Brazil?s cotton industry. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to impose penalties on Americans who had not obtained health insurance?which they were required to do under the 2010 health care reform law that was supported by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to impose penalties on Americans who had not obtained health insurance?which they were required to do under the 2010 health care reform law that was supported by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans.. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or enforce the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was signed into law by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans. .
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by any federal employee to implement or enforce the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was signed into law by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) prohibiting federal funds from being used by any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) supported this amendment: ?For this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of citizenship, this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of freedom, this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of being an American is that you have to buy a particular product that some unknown, faceless bureaucrat here in Washington ordains that you have to buy. We have come to the time that liberty is being taken away from us, that the strong hand of a Big Brother is reaching out and telling us you have to do this and you have to do that as the price of freedom and the price of liberty.? The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 241-187. All 238 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.?. 187 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by employees of the Health and Human Services Department (the federal agency that enforces laws relating to health care) to implement or enforce the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was signed into law by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) prohibiting federal funds from being used by employees of the Health and Human Services Department (the federal agency that enforces laws relating to health care) to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce any regulations relating to greenhouse gas emissions.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce any regulations relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used by U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain access to library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used by U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain access to library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Review Board (which reviews permits relating to oil drilling) to invalidate a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to drill for oil in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Review Board (which reviews permits relating to oil drilling) to invalidate a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to drill for oil in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds.Planned Parenthood provides a number of reproductive and child health services. Abortions are among the services that Planned Parenthood offers. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds.Planned Parenthood provides a number of reproductive and child health services. Abortions are among the services that Planned Parenthood offers. However, Pence?s amendment would have banned federal funding for all Planned Parenthood services?not just abortions. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for enforcing an Education Department regulation which withheld financial aid for career education programs that, according to critics (including the Obama administration), left students in debt and without the possibility of gainful employment. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Kline (R-MN) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for enforcing an Education Department regulation which withheld financial aid for career education programs that, according to critics (including the Obama administration), left students in debt and without the possibility of gainful employment. (These schools, which include Kaplan University and Capella University, are sometimes referred to as ?proprietary schools? or ?career colleges.?) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan during 2011 to $10 billion. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that would have limited funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan during 2011 to $10 billion. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all federal funding ($7 million) for the Defense Department?s sponsorship of NASCAR. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) that would have eliminated all federal funding ($7 million) for the Defense Department?s sponsorship of NASCAR. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which regulates banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions?and guards against abusive practices by financial institutions against consumers) by $63 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have increased funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB--which regulates banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions?and guards against abusive practices by financial institutions against consumers) by $63 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC--which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the salaries and expenses of White House czars--high-ranking policy officials with interagency authority who were not subject to congressional oversight. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the salaries and expenses of White House czars--high-ranking policy officials with interagency authority who were not subject to congressional oversight.. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of environmental standards regulating air toxins released by cement manufacturing. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of environmental standards regulating air toxins released by cement manufacturing. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for a program that reimburses plaintiffs for attorneys? fees when they successfully sue the federal government. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for a program that reimburses plaintiffs for attorneys? fees when they successfully sue the federal government. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.) GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment waving a provision of current law that required fire departments receiving federal funding to limit salaries, and prohibited them from laying off firefighters for two years. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Price (D-NC) waving a provision of current law that required fire departments receiving federal funding to limit salaries, and prohibited them from laying off firefighters for two years. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for carrying out activities of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides public funding for presidential candidates and political parties? nominating conventions.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for carrying out activities of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides public funding for presidential candidates and political parties? nominating conventions. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective)
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.) WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut federal funding for Amtrak rail service by $446.9 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would have cut federal funding for Amtrak rail service by $446.9 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center, which was established to improve relations between the United States and Asia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-TX) eliminating $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center, which was established to improve relations between the United States and Asia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $42.7 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace, which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) eliminating $42.7 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all funding ($283 million) for the National Labor Relations Board, which was established to protect workers? rights and promote productive negotiations between labor and management. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that would have eliminated all funding ($283 million) for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was established to protect workers? rights and promote productive negotiations between labor and management. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment increasing funding for state programs serving children with disabilities by $557 million, but cutting $337 million in funding for education grants to low-income school districts, and cutting $500 million in funding for grants to states to improve poorly-performing schools. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) increasing funding for state programs serving children with disabilities by $557 million, but cutting $337 million in funding for education grants to low-income school districts, and cutting $500 million in funding for grants to states to improve poorly-performing schools. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating all federal funding (totaling $15 million) for the Presidio Trust Fund, which oversees the management of Presidio National Park in San Francisco. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Thomas Reed (R-NY) eliminating all federal funding (totaling $15 million) for the Presidio Trust Fund, which oversees the management of Presidio National Park in San Francisco. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating all federal funding (which totaled $4.5 million) for a program that supports artistic and cultural initiatives in the District of Columbia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-TX) eliminating all federal funding (which totaled $4.5 million) for a program that supports artistic and cultural initiatives in the District of Columbia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $20.6 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts (which provides federal funding for things such as musical performances and theater). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) eliminating $20.6 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts (which provides federal funding for things such as musical performances and theater), or ?NEA.? This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $7.4 million in funding for the U.S. Forest Service International Programs (which promote forest preservations and sustainable management of forests around the world). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) that would have eliminated $7.4 million in funding for the U.S. Forest Service International Programs (which promote forest preservations and sustainable management of forests around the world). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
(H.R. 514) Final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act (a law designed to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone). Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $10 million in funding for sewer construction in Tijuana, Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Thomas Reed (R-NY) eliminating $10 million in funding for sewer construction in Tijuana, Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. This sewer project--which was funded by a U.S.-Mexico border environmental protection program--had been intended to address concerns by San Diego-area residents that human waste from Tijuna had washed up on their shores. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $8.5 million in funding for a program requiring companies that were major sources of carbon pollution (such as power plants) to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Mike Pompeo (R-KS) eliminating $8.5 million in funding for a program (known as the Greenhouse Gas Registry) requiring companies that were major sources of carbon pollution (such as power plants) to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $35 million in funding for the purchase of new land by the federal government. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) that would have eliminated $35 million in funding for the purchase of new land by the federal government. (The amendment would have cut all funding available for this program for the remainder of 2011.) This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would eliminated $70 million in funding for research relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) that would have eliminated $70 million in funding for research relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have removed a ban on funding for ?weatherization assistance? (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have removed a ban on funding for ?weatherization assistance? (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. This CR explicitly prohibited the use of funds for weatherization assistance or the State Energy Program. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for research on new energy technology by $20 million and cut funding for fossil fuel research by $20 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) that would have increased funding for research on new energy technology by $20 million and cut funding for fossil fuel research by $20 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $50 million in funding for research on energy technology. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) that would have eliminated $50 million in funding for research on energy technology. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated more than $324 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal aid to the poor. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) that would have eliminated more than $324 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal aid to the poor. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment increasing funding for the COPS program (which provides federal funding to states for additional police officers) by $298 million, and cutting funding for space exploration programs by $298 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) increasing funding for the COPS program (which provides federal funding to states for additional police officers) by $298 million, and cutting funding for space exploration programs (under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA) by $298 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $10 million in funding for the construction of scientific research facilities. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) that would have eliminated $10 million in funding for the construction of scientific research facilities. (Such construction is funded through the federal government?s National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST], an agency that works with private industry to develop new technologies.) This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating approximately $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center, which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) eliminating approximately $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have provided $5 million to assist farms in transitioning to organic production methods. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have provided $5 million to assist farms in transitioning to organic production methods. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi police. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have eliminated $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi police. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $400 million in funding for improving infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) that would have eliminated $400 million in funding for improving infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $450 million in funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 fighter jet. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) eliminating $450 million in funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 fighter jet. This program had been widely criticized as wasteful. (Among others, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was a prominent critic of the alternative engine.) This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
(H.R. 514) Legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act? -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill. Specifically, the bill extended provisions allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act (a law designed to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone). Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records). HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut $415 million from the Navy and Air Force? s annual funding for aircraft procurement. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) that would have cut $415 million from the Navy and Air Force? s annual funding for aircraft procurement. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut $18.75 million for boards and commissions that provide advice and policy recommendations to the Defense Department. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have cut $18.75 million for boards and commissions that provide advice and policy recommendations to the Defense Department. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
(H.R. 1) Legislation funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps (which provide nutritional assistance to the poor), community health centers, Pell Grants for low?income college students, and funding for state job training programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. For example, the bill cut funding from environmental protection programs, food stamps?which provide nutritional assistance to the poor?as well as community health centers, scientific research, Pell Grants for low?income college students, the National Institutes of Health, federal aid for state law enforcement programs, and funding for state job training programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
(H.R. 1) Legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps (which provide nutritional assistance to the poor), community health centers, Pell Grants for low?income college students, and funding for state job training programs ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. For example, the bill cut funding from environmental protection programs, food stamps?which provide nutritional assistance to the poor?as well as community health centers, scientific research, Pell Grants for low?income college students, the National Institutes of Health, federal aid for state law enforcement programs, and funding for state job training programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
(H.R. 514) Final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act.? Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).
This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act (a law deigned to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone). Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records). HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
(H.R. 514) On a motion that would have required all investigations of U.S. citizens conducted under a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act to ?be conducted in a manner that complies with the Constitution of the United States?? The motion also would have required courts to expedite cases brought by American Citizens who claim that their civil rights have been violated as a result of the Patriot Act.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required all investigations of U.S. citizens conducted under a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act (a law designed to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone) to ?be conducted in a manner that complies with the Constitution of the United States?? The motion also would have required courts to expedite cases brought by American Citizens who claim that their civil rights have been violated as a result of the Patriot Act. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation extending expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records). HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
(H. Res. 72) On a motion that would have required congressional committees to ?place a high priority on preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the nation's food supply, safe drinking water, and the safety of children's toys? when conducting a review of federal regulations. This motion was offered to legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would have required congressional committees to ?place a high priority on preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the nation's food supply, safe drinking water, and the safety of children's toys? when conducting a review of federal regulations. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.) This motion was offered to legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
(H. Res. 72) Legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation instructing congressional committees (such as the Education and the Workforce Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, etc.) to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
(H. Res. 72) Legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation instructing congressional committees (such as the Education and the Workforce Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, etc.) to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
(H.R. 514) Legislation extending expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act? -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill. Specifically, the bill extended provisions allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records). HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
(H.R. 519) Final passage of legislation that would have required the United Nations to return $179 million to the United States. These funds had been overpaid into the United Nations (U.N.) Tax Equalization Fund, which reimburses UN employees for taxes paid on their salaries. (The Obama administration, however, had not requested that the overpaid funds be returned to the U.S. Treasury.)
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required the United Nations (U.N.) to return $179 million to the United States. These funds had been overpaid into the United Nations Tax Equalization Fund, which reimburses U.N. employees for taxes paid on their salaries. (The Obama administration, had not requested that the overpaid funds be returned to the U.S. Treasury, because the U.N. had begun to use the money to enhance Security at its New York headquarters.) WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
(H.R. 514) Passage of legislation that would have extended expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act.? Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have extended expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records). HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
(H.R. 359) Final passage of legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns. Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated U.S. taxpayers? option to designate a portion of their income tax for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The bill would transfer the current balance of that fund to the United States Treasury for deficit reduction. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this bill reduced the deficit by $617 million over ten years. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
(H.R. 359) On a motion that would have required independent groups that fund campaign advertisements to disclose their financial donors. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required independent groups that fund campaign advertisements to disclose their financial donors. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation eliminating public funding for presidential elections. That bill was estimated to reduce the federal budget deficit by $617 million over ten years. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
(H.R. 359) Legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated U.S. taxpayers? option to designate a portion of their income tax for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Under the bill, the current balance of that fund would be transferred to the United States Treasury for deficit reduction. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this bill reduced the deficit by $617 million over ten years. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
(H. Res. 38) Final Passage of a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.
This was a vote on final passage of a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less. (Specifically, the underlying resolution provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
(H. Res. 38) On a motion that would have prohibited the federal government from awarding contracts to companies that have outsourced American jobs overseas.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would prohibited the federal government from awarding contracts to companies which have outsourced American jobs overseas. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less. (Specifically, the underlying resolution provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
(H. Res. 38) Legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less. Specifically, the underlying legislation provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
(H. Res. 38) Legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less. (Specifically, the underlying legislation provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?) If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
(H. Res. 9) Final passage of a resolution instructing committees in the House of Representatives to draft health care reformlegislation. The resolution laid out general principles for new health care legislation, stating that such measures should ?foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations? and ?lower health care premiums through increased competition.?
This was a vote on a resolution instructing four committees in the House of Representatives (the Ways and Means Committee, Judiciary Committee, Education and the Workforce Committee, and Energy and Commerce Committee) to draft new health care reform legislation. House Republicans laid out general principles to which any new health bills should adhere, but did not propose any new programs or policies. For example, the resolution stated that new health care legislation would have been required to ?foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations; lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice?[and] eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending.? Republicans intended for this new health care bill to replace a major health care law enacted in 2010. The House of Representatives had already passed legislation to repeal that law. (The Senate, however, was not expected to act on the repeal measure. In addition, President Obama had indicated he would veto any bill repealing the health care reform law.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
(H.R. 2) Final passage of legislation repealing a 2010 landmark health care reform law that prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and provided health insurance coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.
This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a 2010 landmark health care reform law that prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and provided health insurance coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
(H.R. 2) On a motion) that would have delayed the implementation of legislation repealing a health care reform law until all members of Congress forfeit the health insurance benefits they receive through the federal government employee health insurance program (known as the ?Federal Employees Health Benefits program?). A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would have delayed the implementation of legislation repealing a health care reform law until all members of Congress forfeit the health insurance benefits they receive through the federal government employee health insurance program (known as the ?Federal Employees Health Benefits program?). A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. This motion to recommit was offered by Democrats to a Republican-backed bill repealing a 2010 landmark health care law that provided health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
(H.R. 2) Legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
(H.R. 2) Legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
(H. Res. 5) Final passage of a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives, including eliminating House floor voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, and revising budget rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to bring up tax cut bills that increase federal budget deficits.
This was a vote on final passage of a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives (known as a ?rules package?). The Republicans brought up this rules package immediately after regaining control of the House in 2011 (following the 2010 midterm elections). FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
(H. Res. 5) On a motion to commit (which was the minority?s last chance to amend or torpedo the underlying legislation) that would have required all members of the House of Representatives to publicly state whether they would enroll in the federal government?s health care program for federal employees. (This motion to commit was offered on a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives.) This was a vote on a motion to commit (which was the minority?s last chance to amend or torpedo the underlying legislation) that would have required all members of the House of Representatives to publicly state whether they would enroll in the federal government?s health care program for federal employees (known as the ?Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan). This motion to commit was offered to legislation revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives.) HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
(H. Res. 5) Legislation revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives, including eliminating House floor voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, and revising budget rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to bring up tax cut bills that increased federal budget deficits ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives (known as a ?rules package?). If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The Republicans brought up this rules package immediately after regaining control of the House in 2011 (following the 2010 midterm elections). FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
(H. Res. 5) On a motion to table (kill) a Democratic proposal that would have required a special committee (made up of five members of Congress ? 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) to determine whether a Republican resolution eliminating voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories (such as Puerto Rico) was constitutional. This was a vote on tabling (killing) a Democratic proposal that would have required a special committee (made up of five members of Congress ? 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) to determine whether a Republican resolution eliminating all voting rights on the House floor for delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories was constitutional. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 664 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 847 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 662 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment: H R 3082 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 661 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments: H R 2751 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 660 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 2142 GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 659 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 5116 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 657 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1771 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
(S. 3874) Final passage of legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking water
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking water. Under the bill, the sale of such products would be permissible only if they were ?lead-free.? ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
(H.R. 5510) Final passage of legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 654 |
(H.R. 2142) Final passage of legislation that would have required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies. The bill also provided for a training program for employees who would be charged with evaluating the merits and efficacy of government programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 653 |
(H. J. Res 105) Legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 652 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 650 |
(H.R. 6523) Final passage of legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011 ? including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011 (this legislation was known as the ?Defense Authorization bill?), including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 647 |
(H.R. 4853) Final passage of legislation extending income tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for two years, and extending (for one year) unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits
This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and extending (for one year) unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4853 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 987 To protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 1766 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: H RES 1766 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 638 |
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2965 Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 635 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1764 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 629 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 3167 Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act of 2010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 625 |
(H.R. 5281) Final passage of legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally
This was a vote on final passage of legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
(H.R. 5281) Legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 622 |
(H.R. 3082) Final passage of legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations
This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011. Such spending bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? Democratic leaders also attached a food safety bill to this CR. The food safety bill, which had already passed the Senate, increased safety inspections at food processing plants and gave the federal government new authority to recall tainted food products. The CR also froze the salaries of civilian federal workers for two years. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 619 |
(H.R. 3082) Legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011. Such spending bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? Democratic leaders also attached a food safety bill to this CR. The food safety overhaul increased safety inspections at food processing plants and gave the federal government new authority to recall tainted food products. The CR also froze the salaries of civilian federal workers for two years. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
(H.R. 6495) Final passage of mine safety legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection (known as ?whistleblower protection?) to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions. Whistleblower protections shield employees from employer retaliation when they expose such conditions. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
(H. Res. 1752) On a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments -- to all legislation considered in the House of Representatives until December 18 -- on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee. This resolution was intended to expedite consideration of major legislation, including a bill extending expiring income tax cuts; legislation implementing stricter food safety regulations; a bill providing annual funding for the Defense Department; and legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.
This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments -- to all legislation considered in the House of Representatives until December 18 -- on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
(H.R. 5987) Final passage of legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment. Proponents of the bill argued such a payment was necessary because Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks in 2011.
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment. Proponents of the bill argued such a payment was necessary because Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks in 2011. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 604 |
(H.R. 4853) Final passage of legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire
This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 603 |
(S. 3307) Final passage of legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools
This was a vote on final passage of legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 602 |
(S. 3307) On a motion to recommit with instructions (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) on a school lunch and child nutrition bill that would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks. This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions (on a school lunch and child nutrition bill) that would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks. The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
(H.R. 4853) Legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
(H.R. 4853) Legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 593 |
(H. J. Res. 101) Final passage of legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010
Government operations are generally funded by 12 annual spending bills, known as ?appropriations bills.? (For example, one annual spending bill funds Agriculture Department programs and operations, while another funds those of the Defense Departmen.) Since none of those 12 bills had been enacted, a temporary measure ? known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR? -- was needed to keep the government running on a short-term basis. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
(H. J. Res. 101) Legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
(S. 3307) Legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
(S. 3307) Legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
(H.R. 4783) Final passage of legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months
This was a vote on final passage of legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers. The bill also extended for six months the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to America?s poorest families. This bill had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
(H.R. 4783) Legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers. The bill also extended for six months the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to America?s poorest families. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 579 |
(H.R. 6419) Final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits have expired. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
(H.R. 1722) Final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home)
This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from places other than office, such as one?s home) ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from places other than office, such as one?s home). ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
(H.R. 3808) On overriding the president?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries (notaries performed outside of the state where the court is located)
This was a vote on overriding the president?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries (notaries performed outside of the state where the court is located). Most Democrats supported sustaining the president?s veto of the bill (and thus killing the bill), while Republicans favored overriding his veto (which would have passed the bill over the president?s objections). HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 572 |
(H. Con. Res 332) On a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional Thanksgiving recess. Republicans opposed this resolution because Democrats had not scheduled a vote on extending all of the income tax cuts enacted under the first Bush administration.
This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional Thanksgiving recess. (This particular recess typically lasts for one week ? the week of Thanksgiving.) FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
(H.R. 1682) Final passage of legislation (known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR?) to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010
This was a vote on final passage of legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions? or ?CRs.?) Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
(H.R. 512) Final passage of legislation prohibiting chief state election officials (state officials charged with supervising state and federal elections) ? including secretaries of state -- from taking an active role in campaigns for federal elections over which they have supervisory authority
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation prohibiting chief state election officials (state officials charged with supervising state and federal elections) ? including secretaries of state -- from taking an active role in federal campaigns for elections over which they have supervisory authority. (For example, if a state official were responsible for supervising an election for U.S. Senate, he or she would be prohibited from taking in active role in any campaign for that U.S. Senate seat.) The bill did not, however, prohibit state election officials from taking an active role in campaigns for state offices. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
(S. 3729) Final passage of legislation authorizing $59 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) over three years
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass of legislation authorizing $59 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) over three years. The bill also authorized NASA to carry out another Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station during that time period. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
(H.R. 1682) Legislation (known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR?) to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?) Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
(H.R. 1682) Legislation (known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR?) to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010 ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?) If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
(H.R. 2701) Final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies
This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. Such agencies include (among others) the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The funding levels provided by the bill for these agencies are unknown because their budgets are classified ? meaning they are not available to the general public. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
(H.R. 6160) Final passage of legislation directing the Energy Department to develop technology to guarantee a long-term supply of ?rare earth elements? (17 periodic table elements which have proved critical to a number of technologies, such as windmill systems, hybrid cars, and computer disk drives), of which China controlled 97% of the world?s current supply and had frozen exports. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rule and pass legislation directing the Energy Department to develop technology to guarantee a long-term supply of ?rare earth elements? (17 periodic table elements which have proved critical to a number of technologies, such as windmill systems, hybrid cars, and computer disc drives), of which China controlled 97% of the world?s current supply and had frozen exports. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. The bill authorized $10 million to be spent on rare earth materials research activities in 2011, and $15 million per year during the 2012-2015 period. The bill also authorized the Energy Department to make loan guarantees intended to spur investment in rare earth technology. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 550 |
(H.R. 847) Final passage of legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
This was a vote on final passage of legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. A number of rescue workers developed respiratory diseases as a result of toxic chemicals at the site of the attacks. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
(H.R. 847) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
(H.R. 847, H.R. 2701, H.R. 2378) Legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to all three bills
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to three separate bills. Those three bills included H.R. 847, which established a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; H.R. 2701, a bill, which authorized annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; and H.R. 2378, which enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
(H.R. 847, H.R. 2701, H.R. 2378) Legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies (such tariffs were intended to make U.S. exports more competitive) ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to all three bills
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to three separate bills. (If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.) Those three bills included H.R. 847, which established a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; H.R. 2701, which authorized annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; and H.R. 2378, which enabled the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. (Those tariffs were intended to make U.S. exports more competitive.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
(H Con Res 321) Passage of a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional pre-midterm election recess (which typically begins in October and lasts into November)
This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional pre-midterm election recess (which typically begins in October and lasts into November). FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
(H.R. 5297) Final passage of legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less
This was a vote on final passage of legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
(H.R. 4823) Final passage of legislation preventing land exchanges (in which the federal government trades publicly owned land with states, local governments, or private entities) within 160,00 acres of the Coconino National Forest in Arizona
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing the ?Sedona-Red Rock National Scenic Area? on 160,000 acres of land in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Designating that land as a ?scenic area? prevents land exchanges (in which the federal government trades publicly owned land with states, local governments, or private entities) on those acres. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
(H.R. 5110) Final passage of legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona.
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona. (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) The monument consists of preserved pre-historic structures built by a Native American community that resided in the area during the early 13th century. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ?On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Representatives that a resolution pledging not to hold a ?lame-duck? session of Congress after the 2010 midterm elections violated House rules. (Lame-duck sessions are held after an election but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office.)
Shortly before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans were trying to prevent a ?lame-duck? session of Congress. (Lame-duck sessions are held after an election but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office.) Republican members of the House of Representatives offered a resolution pledging not to hold a lame-duck session after the election. The Speaker of the House ruled that the Republicans? resolution violated House rules. Republicans made a motion to appeal the Speaker?s ruling. Democrats then made a motion to table (kill) that appeal. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
(H.R. 5131) Final Passage of legislation creating a new national park (the ?Coltsville National Historic Park?) in Hartford, Connecticut
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation creating a new national park in Hartford, Connecticut. (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) This park, the ?Coltsville National Historic Park,? would be established where the Colt Fire Arms Company was once located in Hartford. (The Colt Firearms Company, founded in 1836, was a major small arms manufacturer during the Civil War, as well as World Wars I and II.) ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
(H.R. 4785) Final passage of legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations
This was vote on final passage of legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
(H.R. 4785) Legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
(H.R. 4785) Legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities ( which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
(H.R. 1586) Final passage of legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
(H.R. 1586) Legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to this bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
(H.R. 1586) Legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to this bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
(H.R. 5982) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. (The provision was included in the health care bill to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage.) The provision was widely viewed by members of both parties as overly burdensome for small businesses. The bill also prohibited businesses from receiving refunds from the U.S. Treasury for taxes paid to foreign governments on income that was never reported in the United States. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
(H.R.3534) Final passage of legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil)
This was a vote on final passage of legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil). Democrats brought up this bill in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
(H.R. 3534) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States. The motion to recommit was offered on legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling. The Obama administration imposed the oil drilling moratorium in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast states. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
(H.R. 3534) On an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior
This was a vote on an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) by Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had put the moratorium in place following the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast states. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
(H.R. 3534) On an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund (a fund established to protect and restore natural resources on federal land) to be used for acquiring additional natural resources (meaning new federal land) as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored
This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) on behalf of Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT, who wrote the amendment) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund (a fund established to protect and restore natural resources on federal land) to be used for acquiring additional natural resources (meaning new federal land) as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored. The amendment also provided that the Natural Resources Damages fund use remedies for environmental destruction that restore entire damaged ecosystems, rather than address damage in specific locations. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
(H.R.3534) On an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) making a number of changes to an oil drilling regulation bill, including requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
(H.R. 5851) Final passage of legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials
This was a vote on passage of legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials [these employees are known as ?whistleblowers]. The bill allowed employees to file a complaint (accusing their employers of discrimination) with the Labor Department within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Democrats brought up this bill in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
(H.R. 5851) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns [these employees are known as ?whistleblowers]. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. The motion to recommit was offered to legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
(H.R. 3534, H.R. 5851) Legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling and repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, as well as separate legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation (H.R. 3534) imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, and repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills. The resolution also limited debate and amendments on separate legislation (H.R. 5851) prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials. Democrats brought up both bills in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
(H.R. 5850) Final passage of legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011
This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011. The $67 billion total included $45 billion for highway infrastructure, over $11 billion for public transportation investments, and $2.5 billion for repairs in public housing. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY, which was designed by famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY, which was designed by famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington (known as the ?Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project?). MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island. ENVIRONMENT— Encouragement of Walking and Bicycling as Alternative Means of Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion
This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. (The amendment was intended to reduce funding for those two departments to 2008 levels.) ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
(H.R. 847) Final Passage of legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
This was a vote on amendment by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The amendment applied an ?across-the-board? 18% cut to all programs funded by the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively
This was a vote on an amendment (to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation) that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
(H.R. 5893) Legislation providing roughly $9 billion in infrastructure investment programs (programs intended to create jobs through the construction of things like roads and bridges) and approximately $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing approximately $9 billion for infrastructure investment programs (programs intended to create jobs through the construction of things like roads and bridges) and $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families. The measure also eliminated approximately $11 billion in tax breaks for U.S. companies with overseas operations. (As of press time, no official cost estimate for this bill had been released. Thus, these rough estimates for the measure?s expenditures were based on information made available from the committee that drafted the bill.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
(H.R. 5850) Legislation providing approximately $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing approximately $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
(H.R. 5850) Legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011 ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
(H.R. 5822) On an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million. WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
(H.R. 5822) On an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States. Since 2001, the federal government had held suspected terrorists at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
(H.R. 5827) Final passage of legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. (Current law required such individuals to turn over personal assets ? including guns ? to bankruptcy trustees). JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
(H.R. 5822) Legislation providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs in 2011 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs in 2011. The $121 billion total included funding for veterans? medical care, assistance for homeless veterans, and the maintenance of veterans? medical facilities. In addition to the veterans funding, the bill provided nearly $19 billion for military base construction projects in 2011. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
(H.R. 4899) Final passage of legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) urged support for the bill: ?Those of us here in Congress cannot lose sight of the broader perspective. Our brave military men and women and their civilian counterparts are in the midst of a tough fight that is critical to U.S. national security. Cutting off their funding in the middle of that fight is tantamount to abandonment. I have confidence that? our troops will succeed in Afghanistan if given the time, space, and resources they need to complete their mission.? WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 301 Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
(H. Con. Res 301) Legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Pakistan ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation directing the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Pakistan. The United States had been carrying out military operations in Pakistan as part of its ongoing anti-terrorism efforts. (The Taliban and other militant groups had been operating out of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.) WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
(H.R. 1320) Final passage of legislation barring members of federal advisory committees (which make policy recommendations to federal government agencies) from being appointed based on their political affiliation, and requiring those committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation barring members of federal advisory committees from being appointed based on their political affiliation. The bill also required advisory committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest. Federal advisory committees are comprised of policy experts from the public (government) and private sectors. They make policy recommendations to federal government agencies. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
(H.R. 1264) Legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
(H.R. 1264) Legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
(H.R. 4213) Final passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
(H.R. 4213) Legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
(H. Res. 1537) Legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers -- On a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to the bill on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? --- setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers -- on the same day it was passed by the Rules Committee. (Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments can be offered on a particular bill -- and these rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee.) According to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was passed by the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. In an effort to circumvent the two-thirds majority requirement for same day consideration of a rule governing debate on the unemployment insurance bill, Democratic leaders brought up a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
(H.R. 725) Final passage of legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence. The bill also permitted any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products (current law allowed only Federal Bureau of Investigation officials to investigate such sales). This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence. The bill also permitted any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products. Current law allowed only Federal Bureau of Investigation officials to investigate such sales. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
(H.R.5114) Passage of legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners
This was a vote on passage of legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners. (Coverage is provided to property owners in communities that agree to adopt practices intended to reduce the risk of future flooding.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
(H.R. 5114) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program (which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners)
This was a vote on a motion to recommit (on a flood insurance bill) that would have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP -- which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
(H.R. 5114) Legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program, which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners. (Coverage is provided to property owners in communities that agree to adopt practices intended to reduce the risk of future flooding.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
(H.R. 1722) Final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs
This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
(H.R. 1722) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a telecommuting bill requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting or ?teleworking? (working from home) policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting. Employees who were delinquent on their taxes, or who had been disciplined for poor work performance, would be barred from telecommuting. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited employees from engaging in collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill
This was procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
(H.R. 4438) Passage of legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties in Texas
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties in Texas. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
(H.R. 4899) On an amendment (to a war funding bill) that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment (to a war funding bill) that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. President Obama had stated his intention to begin a withdrawal of troops by July 2011. If the president were to adopt a new policy that did not begin withdrawing troops by that date, the amendment would have required him to obtain approval from Congress. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
(H.R. 4899) On an amendment that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funding exclusively for withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The amendment was offered to a war-funding bill This was an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) with other members that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funds exclusively for the purposes of withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The amendment was offered to a war-funding bill. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
(H.R. 4899) On an amendment to war funding legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants, and $700 million for border security enforcement This was a vote on an amendment to war funding legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs. It also provided $5 billion for Pell Grants for low-income college students and $700 million for border security enforcement. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
(H.R. 4899) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
(H.R. 5618) Passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired This was a vote on passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Specifically, the bill extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
(H.R. 5618) On an amendment that would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February, 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance ? On a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that the amendment violated House rules This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a motion to recommit on an unemployment insurance extension bill violated House rules. The motion to recommit would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance. (The economic stimulus measure was enacted in response to the financial crisis in 2009.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
(H.R. 5618) Legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired ? on the resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Specifically, the bill extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
(H.R. 4173) Passage of major financial regulatory reform legislation intended to prevent the kind of economic crisis that occurred in September 2008 This was a vote on passage of a conference report on financial regulatory reform legislation. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
(H.R.4173):On a motion that would have amended financial regulatory reform legislation to require a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve This was a vote on a motion to recommit on the financial regulatory reform conference report (see explanation of conference reports below) that would have required a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
(H.R. 4173) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
(H.R. 4173) On a resolution allowing the House of Represenatatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation as well as separate legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
(H.R. 4173) On bringing to a final vote a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation as well as separate legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers This was a procedural vote on a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
(H.R. 5618) Passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
(H.R. 5175) Passage of legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party
This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for or against a political candidate or party through independent expenditures (spending on campaign ads). That prohibition also applied to foreign-owned corporations. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
(H.R. 5175) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) on campaign finance reform legislation that would have banned political ?robocalls? (automated calls to voters urging support for or opposition to a political candidate) unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a campaign finance reform bill that would have banned political ?robocalls? (automated calls to voters urging support for or opposition to a political candidate) unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
(H.R. 5175) On an amendment to a campaign finance reform bill that required the funders of a political television advertisement to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertise advertisement?s ?disclaimer? (in which the funder of the ad acknowledges financing it)
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA) to a campaign finance reform bill that that required the funders of political television advertisements to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertisement?s disclaimer. The ?disclaimer? refers to the portion of the advertisement in which its funder acknowledges financing it. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
(H.R. 5175) Legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party ? On a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
(H.R. 5175) Legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
(H.R. 5297) Passage of legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less
This was a vote on passage of legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
(H.R. 5297) On an amendment to small business legislation that would have required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009) to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill
This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) on a small business legislation that would have required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend it as specified. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
(H.R. 5486) Passage of legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses and restricting the use of granter retained annuity trusts (?GRATS, ? which allow individuals to transfer wealth to family members without paying a gift or estate tax) by requiring that they have a 10-year minimum term
This was a vote on passage of legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses. In addition, the bill restricted the use of granter retained annuity trusts (GRATS). GRATS essentially allow individuals to transfer wealth to family members without paying a gift or estate tax. By setting up a trust that is passed onto a beneficiary (which must be a family member), wealthy individuals can facilitate a considerable transfer of wealth without being subject to the normal tax penalties that apply to such transfers. If the individual dies before the GRAT?s term expires, the family member receives the remaining value of the trust. The bill would limit the use of these financial instruments by requiring a minimum 10-year terms for GRATS. Requiring a 10-year minimum term would make GRATS a riskier option for older people who may not survive for a full decade. In other words, a 10-year GRAT requires far more financial risk than a two or three-year GRAT. Forbes? Ashlea Ebeling explained the rationale this way: ?The House bill would require a GRAT to last a minimum of 10 years. That increases the risk the person setting it up will die during the term of the GRAT, making GRATS less attractive for the older folks who typically set them up.? FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
(H.R. 5486) On an amendment to small business legislation that would have repealed a provision in a major health care reform law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance
This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on small business legislation that would have repealed a provision in a major health care law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance. Most Republicans opposed this provision, which is known as the ?individual mandate.? HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
(H.R. 4855) Passage of legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies? ? policies that enable employees to balance the demands of work with family life.
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies? ? policies that enable employees to balance the demands of work with family life. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
(H.R. 5486, H.R. 5297) Legislation exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Helping Small Business |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
(H.R. 5072) On an amendment to housing legislation that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000. Current prohibited the program from insuring loans in excess of $729,750. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
(H.R. 5072) On an amendment to housing legislation that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
(H.R. 5072) On an amendment to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required under current law. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
(H.R. 4173) On a motion instructing a conference committee (which resolves differences between House and Senate versions of bills after they have passed both chambers) resolving differences between a House and Senate version of financial regulatory reform legislation to prohibit the federal government from stabilizing troubled financial institutions under any circumstancesDescription:This was a vote on a Republican motion instructing a conference committee resolving differences between a House and Senate version of financial regulatory reform legislation to prohibit the federal government from stabilizing troubled financial institutions under any circumstances. (When the House and Senate pass two different versions of the same bill, they generally hold a conference to resolve the discrepancies between the two. Each body appoints a representative number of its members to participate in the conference.) This procedure, known as a ?motion to instruct conferees,? directs the conferees on a bill take a specific action with regard to the legislation that is the object of the conference. While the bill did allow the government to prop up institutions in situations that could lead to a financial catastrophe, those actions would be paid for by a fund financed by a fee on financial institutions ? not taxpayer money. In these situations, the government would be empowered to fire all of the top management of the institution in question. The government could extend loan guarantees for banks and financial institutions only if they were solvent, and only in the event of a liquidity crisis (This refers to a ?frozen credit market,? in which financial institutions stop lending -- which can have disastrous economic effects.). GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
(H. Res. 989) On passage of a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification -- which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States.
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification --which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
(H.R. 5072) Legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program ? on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
(H.R. 5072) Legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program ? on bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.
This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Passage: H R 5136 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for Defense Department programs in 2011 that would have prohibited the bill?s funds from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States This was a vote on a motion to recommit offered by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) that prohibited funds provided by a Defense bill from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States. Since 2001, the federal government had held suspected terrorists at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
(H.R. 5136) On a motion to table (kill) an appeal of the ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to freeze the salaries of all federal employees violated House rules This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of the ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to freeze the salaries of all federal employees violated House rules. During debate on legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department in 2011, Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) offered a motion to recommit that would have frozen the salaries of all federal employees ? including members of Congress. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
(H.R. 5116) Passage of legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research
This was a vote on passage of legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Of the $86 billion total, $44 billion would be designated for National Science Foundation programs, while $35 billion would be designated for Energy Department research programs. The bill also authorized $5.4 billion for National Institute of Standards and Technology programs. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency within the Commerce Department. Its mission to promote competitiveness through scientific and technological research.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
(H.R. 5116) On an motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have frozen spending on existing programs in (in a bill intended to make the U.S more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit. This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have frozen spending on existing programs (in legislation intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendmentthat would have barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by the underlying bill if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. This was a vote on an amendment that would have barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by the underlying bill if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment that would have required that institutions of higher education that serve large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for funding provided by all programs in the underlying bill. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. This was a vote on an amendment that would have required that institutions of higher education serving large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for federal funding provided by the underlying bill.The proposal would essentially put schools that serve disabled veterans in the same category (with respect to eligibility for federal funding) as institutions such as Gallaudet, a university for the blind. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste. The initiative also was intended to help manufacturers commercialize new products relating to renewable energy systems. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
(H.R. 4213) Passage of legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.
This was a vote on passage of legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians (known as the physician payments ?fix?) scheduled to take effect on June 1. The Democratic leadership had decided to divide H.R. 4213 into two different sections, each to be voted separately. The first vote was on all provisions contained in the bill except the Medicare physician payment ?fix.? (Those provisions included an extension of unemployment insurance and tax credits for small businesses.) The second vote (this vote) dealt exclusively with the physician payments. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa. HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
(H.R. 4213) Passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses, and extending through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure.
This was a vote on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses. The legislation also extended through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. In addition, the measure extended the flood insurance program through December 31, 2010. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
(H.R. 4213) On a resolution setting the terms for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, as well as allowing a separate vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010. The bill also extended through 2010 tax credits for small businesses as well as a a bonds program encouraging state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. The resolution also allowed the House to take a separate vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
(H.R. 4213) On an amendment eliminating a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans. The amendment also divided the bill into two separate sections, each to be voted on separately (One section blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, and the other section contained the rest of the bill.)
This was a vote on an amendment eliminating a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans. The amendment was not offered to the bill itself, but to the resolution that allowed the House to debate and vote on the bill. Such resolutions typically set a time limit for debate and determine which amendments can be offered to legislation. In rare cases, however, these resolutions can make substantive changes to the underlying bill. This was such a case. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) offered this amendment. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
(H.R. 4213) On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.
This was a procedural vote ordering the previous question (which, if passed, effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote) on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance and health benefits for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010. The bill also blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1. In addition, the bill extended through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for Defense Department programs that barred the federal government from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) to legislation authorizing funding for Defense Department programs in 2011 that barred the federal government from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers. In addition, the amendment required all federal agencies to conduct an inventory of their existing government contracts. The amendment required those inventories to specify the total amount of federal money spent on each contract. The inventories were also required to identify contracted services that had been ?poorly performed,? either due to excessive cost or inferior quality. The amendment also required the inventories to identify government contracts in which services should be ?insourced,? or transferred to government employees. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality. In a compromise intended to attract support from military leaders, the amendment allowed the Pentagon to postpone repeal of DADT until the department completes a review of the policy in December 2010. Following the review, DADT would be repealed only if military leaders certify that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, or recruiting and retention. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to a bill authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (a military aircraft), which the Pentagon views as unnecessary and too expensive.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) to a bill authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (a military aircraft), which the Pentagon views as unnecessary and too expensive. According to the Washington Post: ?Gates has opposed the extra engine for years, saying it is unnecessary and a waste of money. But Congress has argued that funding a second engine model for the F-35 would keep defense contractors on their toes by forcing them to compete.? WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funds for the Defense Department that allowed the Government Accountability Office (which carries out audits and investigations on behalf of Congress) to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee.
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) to legislation authorizing funds for the Defense Department that allowed the Government Accountability Office (which carries out audits and investigations on behalf of Congress) to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) already possesses this authority with respect to other Congressional committees. An exception has long been made for the Intelligence Committee, however, due to the sensitive nature of the issues under its jurisdiction. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
(H.R. 5136) Legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs ? on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 282 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
(H. Res. 1363) On a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion on April 5, 2010 in West Virginia ? On bringing the resolution to a final vote This was a procedural vote on a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion in West Virginia. (This particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.) On April 5, 2010, 29 miners were killed in an explosion in Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
(H.R. 5325) Legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
(H.R. 2288) Passage of legislation authorizing funding to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River (which runs through parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona) Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin (which runs through parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah) This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing funding for programs to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River (which runs through parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona) Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin (which runs through parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah). H.R. 2288 authorized ?such sums as may be necessary? through 2023 for these fish conservation initiatives. (Funding for those initiatives was previously set to expire in 2011.) The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing the legislation would cost $12 million per year through 2015, and $3 million to $4 million annually from 2016 through 2023. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
(H. Res. 1338) Passage of a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service,? which most Republicans opposed on the basis that some AmeriCorps volunteers are currently employed by Planned Parenthood (a pro-abortion rights organization which provides abortions through its clinics, along with a variety of other reproductive health and counseling services) This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service.? Americorps is a national public service program in which volunteers perform jobs ranging from education to environmental cleanup. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels, and prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions on a science and technology research bill that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) doubling ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) to a science and technology research bill that doubled ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. (The original underlying bill had authorized $50 million to be spent on this program.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds authorized by the bill if those institutions fail to provide unions with information to which they were entitled under current law This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to a science and technology research bill barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds for facilities and administrative costs if they failed to provide labor organizations with information (relating to facilities and administrative costs) to which they were entitled under current law. Specifically, those institutions would be required to provide labor organizations with the applicable information within 15 days of a request. When universities submit requests for grants, those requests account for the cost of maintaining or installing new facilities, and various administrative costs. Often, postdoctoral individuals are responsible for carrying out much of this administrative work (which includes tasks such as running laboratories). Miller charged that the University of California, Berkley, for example, had failed to pass on grant funding intended for administrative costs to the postdoctoral individuals who did the administrative work. Thus, the amendment was intended to force universities to be more transparent with respect to how they spend grant funding. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies
This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) to a a science and technology research bill establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies. The consortium would include research universities, private industry, as well as nongovernmental organizations that specialize in clean energy development. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) that would have eliminated provisions in the bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation and creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness
This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) that would have eliminated a provision in a science and technology research bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. The amendment also would have eliminated a provision in the bill creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness. In addition, the amendment would have eliminated an ?Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,? which the bill established to foster the commercialization of new technologies, products, and services. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
(H.R. 5116) Legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill
This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Of the $86 billion total, $44 billion would be designated for National Science Foundation programs, while $35 billion would be designated for Energy Department research programs. The bill also authorized $5.4 billion for National Institute of Standards and Technology programs. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency within the Commerce Department. Its mission to promote competitiveness through scientific and technological research.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
(H.R. 5019) Passage of legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences, including a rebate of up to $3,000 for homeowners who make their houses 20% more energy efficient This was a vote on passage of legislation authorized a total of $6 billion to be spent over two years on initiatives intended to make private homes more energy efficient. The government would provide rebates for such energy efficiency improvements. The rebate would be given to the contractors responsible for the renovations. Those contractors would then be required to pass on the value of that rebate to their customers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
(H.R. 5019) On an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would eliminate a loan program providing loans for home energy efficiency improvements, eliminate a provision providing $12 million for advertising home energy efficiency programs to the public, and require all the programs authorized by the bill to expire if they were projected to increase the federal budget deficit.
This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) on a bill authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
(H.R. 5019) On an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising energy efficiency programs to the public. This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising the energy efficiency programs to the public. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
(H.R. 5019) On an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (for energy efficiency home renovations) to make new loans This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (for energy efficiency home renovations) to make new loans. In other words, Barton sought to prohibit repaid loans from being ?re-lent.? The underlying bill established the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. This program provided loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
(H.R. 1722) Passage of legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
(H.R. 5019) Legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
(H. Res. 1301) On passage of a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day,? which Republicans opposed because they objected to the resolution?s praise for Amtrak This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day.? Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
(H.R. 2499) Passage of legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory) This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory). (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as the official language, and requiring Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as its official language. In addition, it required Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States" This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that was made through a democratically held process by direct ballot." The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to choose from three options in a referendum: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) As amended, the bill also allowed Puerto Rico to choose to continue its commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment requiring that ballots in a referendum held in Puerto Rico (in which Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its current commonwealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States) be printed in English as well as Spanish This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) requiring that ballots in a referendum held in Puerto Rico be printed in English as well as Spanish. The amendment also provided that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would be subject to any federal English language requirements (such as establishing English as the official language of the United States). Currently, no such federal requirement exists. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on its political future in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.? WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States - in addition to allowing Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its commonwealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to choose from three options in a referendum: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) As amended, the bill also allowed Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) Gutierrez's amendment would have added "none of the above" as an additional option. In a referendum held in 1999 in Puerto Rico, voters chose "none of the above" over statehood, independence, or free association. WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its commonwealth status, in addition to allowing it to choose statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current status as a commonwealth, or territory. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) Foxx's amendment would have allowed for a fourth option -- continuing Puerto Rico's current commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
(H.R. 2499) Legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- On a motion to table (kill) a motion to reconsider (a motion which essentially calls for a revote) the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a motion to table a motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. The House had passed this resolution, and the motion to reconsider essentially asked the House to vote on it again. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
(H.R. 2499) Legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
(H.R. 2499) Legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) WAR & PEACE— Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
(H.R. 4851) Final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid-off workers, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid off workers and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians. The Senate had already passed the bill. House passage thus cleared it for the president's signature. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
(H.R. 4175) Passage of legislation authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries (bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea) This was a vote on passage of a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. (Estuaries are coastal bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea.) ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
(H.R. 4715) On an amendment that would have reduced the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million from $50 million This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that would have had the effect of reducing the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million. The underlying bill authorized $50 million annually for the program through 2016. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
(H.R. 4715) On an amendment to an estuary (a body of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mixes with salt water from the sea) restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive estuary conservation and management plan This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carol Shea Porter (D-NH) to an estuary restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive estuary conservation and management plan. Estuaries are bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea. The underlying bill authorized $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
(H.R. 4175) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries (bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea) This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. (Estuaries are coastal bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea.) ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
(H.R. 4872) Final passage of legislation making a number of changes to major health care legislation, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018 After the House and Senate both passed their respective health care reform bills, the two chambers had intended to reconcile those two bills into a final package. After the House and Senate passed that final package, it would have been sent to President Obama, who would have signed it into law. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), however, won a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before the final health care bill could be brought up for a vote. Brown's victory gave Republicans 41 votes in the Senate, thus depriving Democrats of the 60-vote majority they needed to defeat a Republican filibuster against the final health care bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
(H.R. 4872) A bill making a number of changes to major health care legislation, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018 -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill After the House and Senate both passed their respective health care reform bills, the two chambers had intended to reconcile those two bills into a final package. After the House and Senate passed that final package, it would have been sent to President Obama, who would have signed it into law. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), however, won a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before the final health care bill could be brought up for a vote. Brown's victory gave Republicans 41 votes in the Senate, thus depriving Democrats of the 60-vote majority they needed to defeat a Republican filibuster against the final health care bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
(H. Res. 1125) A resolution expressing support for the goals of "National Public Works Week," which acknowledges the contributions of infrastructure projects to the quality of life in the U.S. -- On a motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution supporting the goals of "National Public Works Week," which acknowledges the contributions of infrastructure projects to the quality of life in the U.S. In 2010, National Public Works Week will be observed May 16 through 22. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
(H.R. 1586) Passage of legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations (the FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S.), and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety This was a vote on passage of legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. The FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S. These funds would be spent on airport planning and development, as well as aviation-related research and engineering. The bill also established new procedures intended to improve aviation safety, including a requirement that the FAA Administrator implement a runway safety plan, as well as a requirement that the FAA complete a study on combating fatigue among pilots. The bill also prohibited airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations. Under current law, the Transportation Department can grant such antitrust immunity to airlines seeking to form alliances. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
(H.R. 1586) Legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations (the FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S.), and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety ? On the resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. The FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S. These funds would be spent on airport planning and development, as well as aviation-related research and engineering. The bill also established new procedures intended to improve aviation safety, including a requirement that the FAA Administrator implement a runway safety plan, as well as a requirement that the FAA complete a study on combating fatigue among pilots. The bill also prohibited airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations. Under current law, the Transportation Department can grant such antitrust immunity to airlines seeking to form alliances. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
(H.R. 4899) Passage of legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program This was a vote on passage of a bill providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. According to the Democratic staff on the committee that drafted the legislation, a number of FEMA projects were on hold due to a shortage of funding. The summer jobs program was intended to employ 300,000 people between the ages of 16 and 21 during the summer months. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
(H.R. 4899) Legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program -- On tabling (killing) an effort to appeal the chair's ruling that an amendment using funds from the economic stimulus law to pay for new spending in the disaster relief bill violated House rules This was a vote on tabling (killing) an effort by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) to appeal the ruling of the chair that his amendment to the disaster relief bill violated House rules. The disaster relief bill provided $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
(H.R. 4849) Passage of legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects This was a vote on passage of legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
(H.R. 4849) On an amendment to repeal a number of provisions in a major health care bill (including an annual limit on contributions to health flexible spending accounts) that was offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects This was a vote on a ?motion to recommit with instructions? ? i.e. an amendment -- offered by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), that would have repealed a number of provisions in major health care legislation recently signed into law by President Obama, including an annual limit on contributions to health flexible spending accounts (FSAs). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
(H.R. 4899) Legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a bill providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. According to the Democratic staff on the committee that drafted the legislation, a number of FEMA projects were on hold due to a shortage of funding. The summer jobs program was intended to employ 300,000 people between the ages of 16 and 21 during the summer months. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
(H.R. 4849) Legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects -- On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
(H.R. 4849) Legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
(H.R. 4872) Passage of a bill making a number of changes to major health care legislation, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018 In order to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
(H.R. 4872) Legislation making changes to a major health care bill, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018 -- On a "motion to recommit with instructions," or amendment to require tighter restrictions on insurance companies' coverage of abortion This was a vote on a "motion to recommit with instructions" amending a bill making a number of changes to Senate-passed health care legislation. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
(H.R. 3590) On passage of legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans This was a vote on passage of a bill making major changes to the national health care system. House passage of the legislation ? which had already passed the Senate -- would clear the bill for the president's signature. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a major Senate-passed health care bill -- as well as a separate companion bill making changes to the Senate health measure.The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The Senate bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a major Senate-passed health care bill -- as well as a separate companion bill making changes to the Senate health measure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On a "question of consideration," or determining whether the House would bring up the resolution allowing the chamber to debate the health care legislation This was a procedural vote determining whether the House would begin consideration of a resolution that would both set a time limit for debate and prohibit amendments to major health care legislation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), raised a point of order against the resolution, claiming it contained earmarks -- provisions tucked into legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale. In order to defeat this point of order against the resolution, the Democrats needed to vote on a "question of consideration" -- which essentially determined whether the House would consider the resolution. If the House voted in favor considering the resolution, the point of order would be defeated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On a "question of consideration," or determining whether the House would bring up the resolution allowing the chamber to debate the health care legislation This was a procedural vote determining whether the House would begin consideration of a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to major health care legislation. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), raised a point of order against the resolution, claiming it contained ?unfunded mandates?, which violate the Congressional Budget Act. An unfunded mandate is a provision requiring states to spend money on a program without providing federal money to pay for the program. In order to defeat this point of order against the resolution, the Democrats needed to vote on a "question of consideration" -- which essentially determined whether the House would consider the resolution. If the House voted in favor considering the resolution, the point of order would be defeated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
(H.R. 1612) Passage of legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs (The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks) This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." As amended, the bill would keep in place an annual $12 million limit on funding for the program. In addition, the program would expire within five years unless legislation is enacted to provide additional funding for the PLSC. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
(H.R. 1612) Legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs (The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks) -- On an amendment keeping in place the annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC, and forcing the program to expire in five years without new legislation to provide it with additional funding. This was a vote on an amendment to legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." The bill would also remove annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
(H.R. 4003) Legislation requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study evaluating the feasibility of designating the Hudson River Valley in New York as a unit of the National Park System -- On a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study of the Hudson River Valley in New York to evaluate the national significance of the area and to determine the feasibility and suitability of designating the valley as a unit of the National Park System. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
(H.R. 3644) Passage of legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
(H.R. 3644) Legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues -- On a "motion to recommit with instructions" -- or an amendment to freeze federal spending on programs funded by the bill at 2010 levels This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
(H.R. 3644) Legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues -- On an amendment to increase the amount of money authorized to be spent on both programs by 10% each year This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. The bill authorized as much money "as is necessary" to be spent on both programs. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
(H.R. 3671) Legislation authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor the Mississippi River Basin -- Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill This was a vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor nutrients and sediment in the Mississippi River Basin. The program would keep a record of the loss of nutrients and sediment in the Basin over time. It would also identify "major sources of sediment and nutrients within the Basin" -- which could then reduce sediment and nutrient loss. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
(H.R. 3644, H.R. 1612) A bill authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues, as well as a separate bill requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs (The PLSC provides for youth volunteer opportunities in national parks) -- On the resolution setting time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two different bills. The first bill, H.R. 3644, would authorize funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. Priority for funding in these programs would be given to given to the Great Lakes states, U.S. territories, Alaska, and mid-Atlantic states. The measure authorized as much money "as is necessary" to be spent on these programs. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
(H. Res. 1194) A resolution "disapproving" of the manner in which Democratic leaders planned to bring up and vote on health care reform legislation -- On a motion to table (kill) the resolution This was a vote on tabling (killing) a resolution offered by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) "disapproving" of the manner in which Democratic leaders planned to bring up and vote on health care reform legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a motion to table the resolution. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
(H. Res. 1190) On a resolution allowing the House to bring up legislation under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments -- and thus giving the Democratic leadership additional time to finalize plans to bring up major health care legislation This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up and vote on legislation under a procedure known as a "motion to suspend the rules." AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
(H. Res. 1190) On bringing to a final vote a resolution allowing the House to bring up legislation under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments -- and thus giving the Democratic leadership additional time to finalize plans to bring up major health care legislation This was a procedural vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up and vote on legislation under a procedure known as a "motion to suspend the rules." AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
(H.R. 3650) On passage of a bill to establish a program to address harmful algal bloom and hypoxia (decayed algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, and can be deadly to freshwater and marine mammals) This was a vote on passage of a bill to establish a program to control and prevent harmful algal bloom and hypoxia. Death and decay of algal blooms deplete oxygen in the water. This process has proven to be deadly for freshwater and marine mammals, and hazardous to human health. The bill would authorize $41 to be spent annually on the program for the next four years. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
(H. Res. 248) Legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the measure This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a measure directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
(H. Res. 248) Legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the measure This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a measure directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
(H.R. 3650) On passage of a bill to establish a program to address harmful algal bloom and hypoxia (decayed algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, and can be deadly to freshwater and marine mammals) -- Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill This was a vote on passage of a bill to establish a program to control and prevent harmful algal bloom and hypoxia. Death and decay of algal blooms deplete oxygen in the water. This process has proven to be deadly for freshwater and marine mammals, and hazardous to human health. The bill would authorize $41 million per year to be spent on the program for the next four years. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
(H.R. 2847) Passage of legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding This was a vote on passage of a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
(H.R. 2847) Legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
(H.R. 2847) Legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding -- On bringing to a final vote a resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
(H.R. 4247) Passage of legislation prohibiting abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students This was a vote on passage of legislation to prohibit abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
(H.R. 4247) Legislation prohibiting abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students -- On the resolution setting the terms for debate on the bill This was a vote on a resolution setting the terms for debate on a bill to prohibit abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
(H.R. 2701) Passage of legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
(H.R. 2701) Legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies -- On a motion to recommit with instructions This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) requiring the Inspector General (IG) of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) compile any objections raised by a Member of Congress to a covert operations after September 11, 2001. (IGs are generally responsible for conducting internal investigations within departments and agencies.) The IG would then assess whether the CIA addressed those objections. In addition, he or she would be required to make publicly available an unclassified version of "all memoranda for the record memorializing briefings made to members of Congress on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques." AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
(H.R. 2701) Legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies -- On an amendment to make a number of technical and substantive changes to the bill, including requiring a 15-year prison sentence for intelligence officials engaging in certain interrogation techniques, and imposing new record-keeping requirements for intelligence briefings provided to Congress This was a vote on an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. The intelligence budget -- which is classified -- includes funding for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill also creates a new position of Inspector General to exercise independent oversight over the intelligence community. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
(H.R. 3961) Final passage of legislation to extend several expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act This was a vote on legislation to extend for one year several expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Government Surveillance of Citizens HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
(H.R. 2701) Legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. The intelligence budget -- which is classified -- includes funding for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill also creates a new position of Inspector General to exercise independent oversight over the intelligence community. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
(H.R. 4626) Legislation to repeal the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations -- On a motion to recommit with instructions This was a vote on an amendment to legislation repealing the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
(H.R. 4626) Legislation to repeal the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for floor debate on a bill repealing the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations. A law enacted in 1945 law shielded the industry from such regulations, and left the state to police anti-competitive behavior. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
Passage of legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government This was a vote on passage of legislation establishing a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. They are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On a substitute that would make a number of changes clarifications to the bill, including a provision requiring that that a U.S. attorney assist the new Native Hawaiian government in confronting legal challenges This was a vote on a substitute offered by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. . Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. They are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On an amendment stating that the bill would not exempta Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to legislation establishing a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. They are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On an amendment that would require Hawaii voters approve the agreement establishing a Native Hawaiian government before the federal government grants it official recognition This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) to the Native Hawiians bill. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. The substitute would require Hawaii voters to approve an agreement establishing a sovereign Native Hawaiian government before the federal government grants it official recognition. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a bill establishing a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. The bill would essentially grant Native Hawaiians the same legal status as Indian tribes. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
(H. J. Res. 45) On passage of a joint resolution that would enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts, and, in effect, increase the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. This was a vote on a joint resolution that would enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts, and, in effect, increase the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
(H. J. Res. 45) Legislation to enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts -- On the resolution that would outlining the rules for floor debate, and raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure to raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion, and enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules -- which require that any tax cuts or spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts so as not to increase the federal budget defect. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
(H. J. Res. 45) Legislation to enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution to outline the rules for floor debate and raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure to enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules -- which require that any tax cuts or spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts so as not to increase the federal budget defect. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
(H.R. 4061) Legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks/On a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation "cybersecurity" programs -- that is, programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks. In addition, the bill would require the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish standards for managing personal information saved on computers. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Cyber Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
(H.R. 4061) Legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks/On bringing to a final vote a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation "cybersecurity" programs -- that is, programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Cyber Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
(H.R.3726) On passage of legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site" to be maintained by the National Park Service This was a vote on a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) as a "national historic site." Such sites are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. The bill was introduced by Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI). Castle Nugent is a historic plantation overseer?s estate that dates back to the 1700s. The site spans approximately 2,900 acres of land. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
(H.R. 3726, H.R. 4474) Legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site" to be maintained by the National Park Service, as well as a bill to extend certain private landowners' permits to maintain and repair water projects on national forest land in Idaho -- On the resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on both bills This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on two different bills. The first would establish the Castle Nugent estate in St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) as a "national historic site." Such sites are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. The bill was introduced by Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands). Castle Nugent is a historic plantation overseer?s estate that dates back to the 1700s. The site spans approximately 2,900 acres of land. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
(H.R. 1065) On passage of legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the state of Arizona, and local governments This was a vote on passage of legislation to ratify a water rights settlement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the state of Arizona, and local governments. The bill was one of three water settlement measures considered by the House as a package. As part of the settlement, the bill would authorize federal funding for the construction of a rural water system to deliver water to tribal lands. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
(H.R. 3342) On passage of legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque; the state of New Mexico; and local governments This was a vote on legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between the the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque -- known as "the Four Pueblos" -- and the state of New Mexico, as well as local governments. The bill was one of three water settlement measures considered by the House as a package. As part of the settlement agreement, the bill would "authorize" the federal funding for the construction of a regional water system in the Rio Grande River Basin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
(H.R. 3254) On passage of a bill to implement a water rights settlement between the Taos Pueblo Indian tribe and the state of New Mexico. This was a vote on legislation to ratify a water rights settlement between the Taos Pueblo Indian tribe, the state of New Mexico, and the town of Taos. The bill was one of three water settlement measures considered by the House as a package. This agreement -- signed in May 2006 -- settles the tribe's claim to water rights in the state. The bill would establish a trust fund to help the Pueblo maintain its water infrastructure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
(H.R. 3726) On passage of a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site" to be maintained by the National Park Service -- Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill This was a vote on a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) as a "national historic site." Such sites are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. The bill was introduced by Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands). Castle Nugent is a historic plantation overseer?s estate that dates back to the 1700s. The site spans approximately 2,900 acres of land. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
(H. Res. 1017) Legislation to approve water rights settlements between state governments and Native American tribes -- on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bills This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on three separate bills -- all of which would approve water rights settlements made by native American tribes. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
(H J Res 64) On sustaining the president's veto of a short-term Defense Department spending bill and rejecting his authority to "pocket veto" the measure. This was a vote on sustaining the president's veto of legislation to keep the Defense Department running in the event that the annual Defense spending bill is not enacted. Procedurally, the vote was technically on whether to pass the legislation in spite of the president's objections. Therefore, a "nay" vote was a vote in favor of sustaining the veto. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 991 |
(H.R. 2847) On passage of legislation redirecting funds previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions to economic stimulus programs; the legislation also provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies This was on final passage of legislation that redirected a portion of the ?TARP? funds, previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions, to economic stimulus programs. The bill also provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other agencies. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 988 |
(H.R. 4314) On passage of legislation that increased the legal national debt ceiling, which was necessary to allow the government to continue operating The federal government operates by borrowing funds through the issuance of Treasury bonds and other debt instruments of the U.S. Government. Congress periodically increases the total amount of those instruments that can be issued, which is known as the ?national debt ceiling?. The Treasury Department advised Congress late in 2009 that it had issued the total amount of the then-current national debt ceiling, and that the government would no longer have the funds to operate after December 31, 2009 unless it could issue additional debt. That additional issuance of debt would require an increase in the national debt ceiling. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 983 |
(H.Res. 976) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government operations - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government operations. This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government departments and agencies. Among the terms of the rule was one that prevented Members from offering any amendments to the legislation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 982 |
(H.Res. 976) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies - - on the motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution setting the terms for considering the legislation This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government departments and agencies. Among the terms of the rule was one that prevented Members from offering any amendments to the legislation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 980 |
(H.Res.973) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies - - on the motion that the House waive a procedural rule so it could begin to consider the legislation The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the funding bill approved on the same day as the rule was submitted to the House. However, there is a procedural regulation that ordinarily requires two-thirds of the Members to vote in favor any rule, if the rule is to be approved on the same day as it is submitted. There was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. This was a vote on a waiver of the procedural regulation. A simple majority was required to waive that two-thirds requirement. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 979 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 973 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the funding bill approved on the same day as the rule was submitted to the House. However, there is a procedural regulation that ordinarily requires two-thirds of the Members to vote in favor any rule, if the rule is to be approved on the same day as it is submitted. There was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. The purpose of this motion was to move to an immediate vote on eliminating the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the legislation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 978 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 968 |
(H.R. 4173) On passage of legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression This was a vote on passage of legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 967 |
(H.R. 4173) Legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on a motion to remove all the regulatory reform provisions and substitute language terminating the program that provided ?bail out? funds to major financial institutions and companies This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Dent (R-PA) that would have sent back to committee legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The motion would also have instructed the committee to delete all the reform provisions in the bill, add language terminating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (?TARP?), and requiring all outstanding TARP loans to be repaid with the proceeds used to reduce the national debt. TARP loans had been used to ?bail out? major financial institutions and companies during the recent financial crisis. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 966 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Bachus of Alabama amendment, which was put forward as a Republican substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Bachus (R-AL), which was put forward as a Republican substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 965 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Minnick of Idaho amendment that would have moved the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department, and required that the standards used by the new agency be in accordance with those already used by the Federal Trade Commission This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Minnick (D-ID) that would have moved the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department, and required that the standards used by it be in accordance with those already used by the Federal Trade Commission. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 964 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Schakowsky of Illinois amendment that required additional regulatory review of ?reverse mortgage? lenders to protect senior citizens from abusive lending practices This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Schakowsky (D-IL) that required additional regulatory review of ?reverse mortgage? lenders to protect senior citizens from abusive lending practices. Reverse mortgages are loans that allow borrowers over the age of 62 to borrow against a portion of the value of their home, and defer the repayment of the loan until they sell the home or die. The number of these mortgages had been increasing. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 963 |
(H.R. 4173) On the of Marshall of Georgia amendment that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages to prevent foreclosures This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Marshall (D-GA) that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify and reduce the amount of home mortgages, extend the mortgage repayment periods, and reduce the interest rate and fees on them to prevent foreclosure. Under existing law, bankruptcy courts have the authority to modify many loans, including car loans and mortgages on vacation houses. That modification authority does not extend to first mortgages on primary residences. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 962 |
(H.R. 4173) On the of Peters of Michigan amendment that permitted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for any shortfall in the ?TARP? funding that was used to bail out troubled banks This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Peters (D-MI) that permitted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for any shortfall in the ?TARP? funding. That funding was used to helped bail out troubled banks. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 961 |
(H.R. 4173) On the McCarthy of California amendment that would have removed language intended to enhance the protection of investors by strengthening the liability standards for national credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McCarthy (R- CA) that would have removed language that was designed to strengthen the liability standards for national credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 960 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Kanjorski of Pennsylvania amendment that would have maintained federal audit requirements designed to protect investors for all public companies, regardless of whether they are large or small This was a vote on an amendment offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, Although the bill included provisions imposing greater regulation on public companies, it also contained language exempting public companies with less than $75 million in market value from the audit of internal controls requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These audit requirements were originally imposed to provide protection to all those who invest in publicly-traded companies. This amendment, offered by Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), would have eliminated the language in H.R. 4173 exempting those smaller public companies. Its passage would have meant that all public companies would be subject to federal audit requirements regardless of their size. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 959 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Stupak of Michigan amendment that would have given additional authority to federal regulators to prohibit certain transactions the regulators believed posed a risk to the financial market place This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) that would have given the Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal regulators the authority to prohibit certain ?swap? transactions they believed posed a risk to the financial market place. A ?swap?is a financial instrument that can be used to lock in the future price for a commodity or as a form of financial insurance. Participating in one can sometimes place an entity in a financially risky position. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 958 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Stupak of Michigan amendment that would have required all financial transactions known as ?swaps? to be executed on an exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) that would have required all financial transactions known as ?swaps? to be executed on an exchange that had registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A ?swap? is a financial contract that can be used to lock in the future price for a commodity or as a form of financial insurance; participating in one can sometimes place an entity in a financially risky position. The requirement that swaps be traded on an exchange registered with the Commission was designed to promote the control and standardization of these transactions. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 957 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Frank of Massachusetts amendment that would have permitted federal regulators to set the requirements for the amount investors would have to deposit as collateral to cover their credit risk on certain financial instruments This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA) that would have permitted federal regulators to set the requirements for the amount investors would have to deposit as collateral to cover their credit risk on financial instruments known as ?derivatives?. Derivatives are sensitive financial instruments whose value is tied - - or derived - - from other instruments such as bonds whose value is backed by the amount of mortgages that are paid in a timely manner. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 956 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Murphy of New York amendment that would substitute a new definition for the term ?major swap participant?, which would place many additional financial companies under more intense regulation This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Murphy (D-NY) to substitute a new definition for the term ?major swap participant?, which is an entity that engages in a type of risky financial transaction to which certain regulations apply. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 955 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Lynch of Massachusetts amendment designed to prevent a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of certain sensitive and risky financial instruments ; the amendment was offered to the legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lynch (D-MA) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. The amendment was designed to prevent a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of all ?derivatives?; these are sensitive financial instruments whose value is tied - - or derived - - from other instruments. An example is investment whose value is dependent on the amount of mortgages that are paid in a timely manner. Problems with large amounts of these derivatives had contributed significantly to the financial crisis the country recently faced. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 954 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Sessions of Texas amendment to eliminate a private right of legal action against credit rating agencies; the amendment was offered to the legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Sessions (R-TX) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. The amendment would have eliminated a proposed new private right of legal action created in H.R. 4173 against credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s. These agencies evaluate the financial strength of bonds and other investments and issue formal ratings on them for investors. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 953 |
(H.R. 4173) On the Frank of Massachusetts amendment that provided several billion dollars to stem the ongoing wave of mortgage foreclosures, gave consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders, and made other changes designed to curtail abuses in the financial system This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. H.R.4173 had been developed in response to the severe problems in the finance and banking industries that had contributed to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 952 |
(H.Res. 964) Legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crises that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The legislation had been developed in response to the severe problems in the finance and banking industries that had contributed to the ongoing economic downturn the country was experiencing. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 951 |
(H.Res. 962) Legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on a motion to waive a procedural rule in order for the House to be able to consider the legislation This was on a motion that effectively would allow the House to consider immediately the resolution setting the terms for debating financial reform legislation. That legislation was designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The Rules Committee develops the resolution setting the terms for debating all significant legislation. Each resolution must be approved before the House can consider the legislation to which it relates. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 949 |
(H.R. 3288) On passage of legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments This was on passage of legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 948 |
(H.Res. 961) Legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 947 |
(H.Res. 961) Legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 945 |
(H.Res. 956) Legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 4173. That bill was designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 943 |
(H.R. 4213) On passage of legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year This was a vote on passage of the legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill also included provisions to generate revenue to compensate for the revenue ?lost? by the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 942 |
(H.R. 4213) On legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year - - on a motion to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling by the Speaker; the ruling was that a motion to add language reducing a proposed tax increase on certain interest generated by businesses was not in order This was a vote on motion to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling by the Speaker. The ruling that had been appealed was that a motion made by Rep. Camp (R-MI), to eliminate language in a pending bill that increased a tax on certain interest generated by businesses, was not in order. The motion had been ruled out of order because it violated the House rule that all proposed revenue reductions, which the Camp motion was, had to be compensated for with spending reductions or other revenue increases. No such revenue increase or spending reduction was included in the motion by Rep. Camp. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 940 |
(H.Res. 955) Legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill for which the rule set the terms for debate also included provisions to compensate for the revenue ?lost? as a result of the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 939 |
(H.Res. 955) Legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill for which the rule set the terms for debate also included provisions that generated revenue to compensate for the revenue ?lost? as a result of the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 937 |
(H.Res. 915) On passage of a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press This vote was on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press. Rep. Engel (D-NY) was leading the support for the resolution. He began his statement in support by noting that the recent history of Hungary showed that the country was moving toward democratic practices, and also noting its contribution to the efforts of the U.S. in the war in Afghanistan. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 931 |
(H.R.3288) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation and for the Department of Housing and Urban Development - - on a motion to instruct the House representatives to the House-Senate conference on the bill The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R.3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation and for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As is the usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was on a motion by Rep. Latham (R-IA) that the House instruct its representatives to the conference not to agree to any matter that was not dealt with in either the House or Senate versions of H.R. 3288. The motion also instructed the House conferees not to agree to a final version of the bill unless they had at least 72 hours to review it. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 929 |
(H.R. 4154) On final passage of legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it This was a vote on final House passage of legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. The imposition of the estate tax had become a very contentious issue. Supporters claimed that it was fair and would be imposed on a very small percentage of Americans. Opponents had taken to calling it a ?death tax?. They claimed it was unfair to those who had paid a tax on their previous earnings and that it was especially damaging to small businesses. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 928 |
(H.R. 4154) Legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it - - on a motion to have language added that would have suspended the imposition of the tax in the remaining portion of fiscal year 2010 and in all of fiscal year 2011 This was a vote on a motion to send legislation, designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it, back to committee with instructions to add additional language. That additional language would have eliminated the imposition of the estate tax in the remaining portion of fiscal year 2010 and in all of fiscal year 2011. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 927 |
(H.R. 4154) On whether to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling by the House Speaker that had prevented a vote on whether to recommit to committee a bill designed to extend the estate tax and have language added eliminating that tax This was a vote on whether the House should table (kill) an appeal of a ruling by the Speaker. That ruling was that a motion by Rep. Heller (R-NV) was out of order. The motion would have recommitted a bill designed to extend the estate tax to committee with instructions to add language eliminating that tax. Most Republican Members were opposed to an extension of the estate tax - - which they had taken to calling the ?death tax? - - and the Heller motion was an effort to eliminate the tax. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 924 |
(H. Res. 941) Legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation. This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that was designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. Supporters of the bill focused on the fact that, under its language, in 2011 the amount of an estate exempted from the tax would be increased to $3.5 million and the tax rate would be reduced to 45%. Opponents, who had supported the repeal of the estate in 2002, were against this bill because they claimed it would effectively reinstate that tax. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 923 |
(H. Res. 941) Legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it - - on a motion for an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation. This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that was designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. Supporters of the bill focused on the fact that, under its language, in 2011 the amount of an estate exempted from the tax would be increased to $3.5 million and the tax rate would be reduced to 45%. Opponents noted that the estate tax had been repealed in 2002, and were against this bill because it would effectively reinstate that tax. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 919 |
(H. R. 515) Legislation prohibiting the importation of low-level radioactive waste unless it is being sent to a federal government or military facility - - on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass the bill This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 515, prohibiting the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste into the United States. Certain exceptions were made for radioactive waste that was being sent to a federal government or military facility. The bill was prompted by the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was considering the importation from Italy and permanent disposition at a site in Utah of 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Nuclear Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 911 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3029 To establish a research, development, and technology demonstration program to improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in combined cycle power generation systems This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 3029, which established a research and development and demonstration program designed to improve gas turbine power generation systems. The specific purpose of the bill was to create a public-private program to improve the efficiency of natural gas turbines used in electric power systems. The bill authorized $85,000,000 in new spending for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 909 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 908 |
|
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 907 |
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 905 |
(H. R. 2781): On passage of legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System This was on passage of legislation that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rivers that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 903 |
(H. Res. 908): Legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation. This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rivers that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 902 |
(H. Res. 908): Legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System - - on a motion for an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rives that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 898 |
(H. Con. Res. 214): Legislation authorizing funding for programs that support local firefighters - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation. This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3791. That legislation authorized funding for programs that support local firefighters. The bill included grant programs designed to keep local fire departments prepared, to provide funding for the purchase of equipment by the local departments, and to help the departments maintain and hire firefighters. As with most significant bills the House considers, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally taken up. Those terms are set by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill limited the amendments that could be offered on the House floor to specific ones that had been designated by the Democratic majority on the Rules Committee. In the case of the rule for this bill, all five of the amendments that had previously been requested to be offered were permitted. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 897 |
(H. Con. Res. 214): Legislation authorizing federal funding for programs that support local firefighters - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that authorized funding for federal programs that support local firefighters. The bill included grant programs designed to help fire departments maintain and hire firefighters. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 896 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 887 |
On passage of major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs Much of the focus of the current congressional session had been on the development of major health care legislation. The legislation had a number of goals. The primary ones were to provide coverage for all Americans, to improve the actual coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs. It was projected that the legislation would cost $1.1 trillion-dollars over 10 years, which supporters said would be paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office had verified this cost, and estimated it would be less than the amount the federal government would otherwise have to pay for health care under then-existing law. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 886 |
(H.R. 3962): Major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs - - on the motion to add provisions designed to limit medical liability law suits, and to create a fund to enable senior citizens to absorb any potential reductions in Medicare benefits resulting from the major health care legislation This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking Republican in the House, to add new language to major health care legislation that the House was debating. The new language was designed to achieve medical liability (tort) reform. The motion also would have added language applying the cost savings Cantor claimed would result from the medical liability reform to a fund he said would be needed to compensate seniors for the amount of cuts to Medicare that would result from the legislation. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 885 |
(H.R.3962): On the Boehner of Ohio amendment, which included the Republican alternative to the major health care legislation supported by the Democratic majority. Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, offered the Republican health care proposal as a substitute amendment for H.R. 3962, major health care legislation that the House was debating. The Republican proposal was much more limited in scope than H.R. 3962. Among other things it did not provide an opportunity for consumers to choose a ?public option? insurance plan that would be operated by the federal government. The New York Times reported that, while the health care legislation to which it was offered as a substitute would provide new coverage for 36 million uninsured people, the provisions of the amendment would have only covered three million of the uninsured. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 884 |
On the Stupak of Michigan amendment prohibiting abortion coverage in any health insurance plan offered by the federal government, and also prohibiting any federal subsidies from going to pay for insurance policies that provide abortion coverage This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) to a major health care bill the House was considering. The amendment prohibited any health insurance plan offered by the federal government (the so-called ?public option?) from covering abortions; it also prohibited insurance subsidies, which the health care legislation provided to help low and middle-income Americans purchase insurance, from going toward the purchase of any policy that covered abortions. An exception was made to both prohibitions for the coverage of abortions to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 882 |
(H.Res. 903): Major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3962, a major health care bill. Before the House considers most significant measures, it first must approve a rule for the legislation. The rule for H.R. 3962 allowed almost no amendments to be offered. These restrictions on amendments and more importantly the substance of the legislation itself were cited by the Republican minority as the reason for opposing the rule. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 881 |
(H.Res. 903): Major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs - - on the motion to bring the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation to an immediate vote This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3962, a major health care bill. It was the first of a series of votes on the health care bill. Before the House considers most significant measures, it first must approve a rule for the legislation. The rule for H.R. 3962 allowed almost no amendments to be offered. These restrictions on amendments and more importantly the substance of the legislation itself were cited by the Republican minority as the reason for opposing the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 875 |
(H.R. 2868) On passage of legislation designed to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2868, which amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to extend and enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. Among the new set of rules required by H.R. 2868 was one that provided additional protection of whistle blowers, and another that expanded the ability of civil law suits against the Department of Homeland Security, which administers federal regulation of chemical facility safety. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 874 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2868 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 873 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2868 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 872 |
On the Dent of Pennsylvania amendment that would have eliminated the requirement that designs and techniques that constitute ?inherently safer technology? be required in all U.S. chemical facilities. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dent (R-PA) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities by establishing a number of new rules for their design and construction. The amendment would have eliminated the requirement in the bill that designs and techniques constituting ?inherently safer technology? (IST) be required in all U.S. chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a the latest set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 871 |
On the Dent of Pennsylvania amendment that would have maintained the existing Department of Homeland Security federal chemical facility security regulations, rather than imposing new ones This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dent (R-PA) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities by establishing a number of new rules. The amendment would have extended the then-current Department of Homeland Security regulations until October of 2012, rather than establishing the new ones in the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 870 |
On the Barton of Texas amendment that would have allowed new federal chemical facility regulations to supersede stricter state and local laws and rules This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Barton(R-TX) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. The amendment would have allowed the new federal chemical facility regulations in the bill to supersede any stricter state and local regulations. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 869 |
On the Thompson of Mississippi amendment clarifying the kind of information about chemical facility security that the Department of Homeland is obligated to disclose This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Thompson (D-Miss) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was primarily intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks on U.S. chemical facilities. The amendment clarified the kind of information about chemical facilities that the Department of Homeland Security is obligated to disclose. The chemical industry had voiced its opposition to the amendment, expressing its concern that the real purpose was to provide information which environmentalists and trial lawyers could use to bring law suits against companies that operated the facilities. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 865 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 857 |
(H.Res. 885) Legislation to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation H.R. 2868 was a bill that amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. As with most important bills, before it could be considered the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. This was a vote on the rule for H.R. 2868. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 856 |
(H.Res. 885) Legislation to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation H.R. 2868 amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to extend and enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. As with all major bills the House considers the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule for H.R. 2868. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 851 |
(H.R. 3639): On passage of a bill to move up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 850 |
(H.R. 3639): A bill to move up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders - - on the motion to add language that would have required that the new protections be effective on February 22, 2010 unless the Federal Reserve System certified that credit card companies could implement them by December 1, 2009, the effective date of the bill Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation requiring several new credit card rules. Those rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect on February 22, 2010. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 849 |
(H.R. 3639): On the Sutton of Ohio amendment to impose a nine month moratorium on increases in annual percentage rates, fees and finance charges on credit cards, and on changes in the terms of balance repayments Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation requiring several new credit card rules. Those rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 847 |
(H.R. 3639): On the Maffei of New York amendment to make certain new legislatively-mandated consumer protections for credit card holders effective immediately upon enactment, instead of waiting until later in the year Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 842 |
(H.Res. 884): A bill to move forward the effective dates for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to protect consumers against further large increases in credit card rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 841 |
(H.Res. 884): A bill to move up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to protect consumers against further large increases in credit card rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 829 |
(H.R. 3854): Legislation that modified and expanded a variety of Small Business Administration (SBA) loan programs - - on a motion to add language mandating a study of the effect of several government policies on the credit risk of federal small business loans. H.R. 3854 modified and expanded a variety of Small Business Administration loan programs. It was developed to help direct capital investments to start-ups and other small businesses in potentially high growth fields such as information technology and clean energy. The bill had general bipartisan support. Rep. Graves (R-MO) was leading the Republicans during the debate on H.R. 3954. He said the legislation will ?significantly strengthen the ability of small businesses to obtain needed capital for retaining and creating new jobs.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 826 |
(H.R. 2996): On passage of legislation containing the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies This was a vote on passage of legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The measure increased corresponding 2009 spending by $4.7 billion, or 17%. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 824 |
(H.Res.876): Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the agreement reached by representatives of the House and Senate This was on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the House-Senate agreement on the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 823 |
(H.Res. 876): Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the agreement reached by representatives of the House and Senate This was on a motion to have an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the House-Senate agreement on the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The House and Senate had passed different versions of that funding bill. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 816 |
(H.R. 2996): Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies - - on instructing House Members developing the final version of the bill to insist on a prohibition against funding a regulation monitoring certain greenhouse gas emissions The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Those representatives typically have flexibility in negotiating the final terms. However, prior to the start of the conference, a Member may move to have the House instruct its representatives to insist on a particular provision. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 810 |
(H.Res. 853) Legislation authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 3619 authorized approximately $10 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard. It increased the number of military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000, and increased the allowable number of officers to 6,700. The legislation also included provisions designed to deal with demonstrated problems in the acquisition of equipment by The Coast Guard. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 809 |
(H.Res. 853) Legislation authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 3619 authorized approximately $10 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard. It increased the number of military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000, and increased the allowable number of officers to 6,700. The legislation also included provisions designed to deal with demonstrated problems in the acquisition of equipment by The Coast Guard. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 807 |
(H.R. 3585) On passage of legislation designed to identify and plan for solar technologies needs, and to provide (financial) resources to schools and laboratories for solar research and development H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. The bill directed the Secretary of Energy to award grants for manufacturing to industry-led solar technology research, development, and demonstration programs. The design of the ?road map" in the bill was based on the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, which was considered to be instrumental in helping semiconductor technology advance rapidly over the previous twenty years. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 801 |
(H.R. 3585) On the Broun of Georgia amendment to reduce the amount and the number of years for which funding for solar technology development would be authorized H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to change the number of years for which the funding was authorized from five to three, and to reduce the amount authorized in each of those three years. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 799 |
(H.Res. 846) Legislation designed to identify, plan for and fund solar technology needs - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 798 |
(H.Res. 846) Legislation designed to identify, plan for and fund solar technology needs - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. As was the case with those other rules, the rule for H.R. 3585 limited the number of amendments that could be offered during the formal debate of the measure. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 789 |
(H.R. 2442) On final passage of legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program This was a vote on the passage of the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The measure authorized $38 million in federal assistance for the design, planning, and construction of six additional water recycling projects for the San Francisco Bay Area. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until there was a vote on legislation to deal with the issue. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 788 |
(H.R. 2442) Legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - - on whether to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling that prevented consideration of a motion to send the legislation back to committee and add language that would have resulted in the resumption of the previous water flow to the San Joaquin Valley of California Water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 787 |
(H.R. 2442) Legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until a vote was allowed on the San Joaquin Valley issue; the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2442 did not provide for an amendment related to the San Joaquin Valley. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 786 |
(H.R. 2442) Legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until a vote was allowed on the San Joaquin Valley issue; the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2442 did not provide for an amendment related to the San Joaquin Valley. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 784 |
(H.R. 2892) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2892, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on House passage. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 783 |
(H.R. 2892) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on a motion to send the report back to the conference that developed it with instructions not to agree to any language that would allow a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to be brought to the United States for prosecution or incarceration The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2892, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. A provision in the final version of H.R. 2892 that received a great deal of attention permitted certain detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to be brought to the United States. This was on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) to send the report back to the conference that developed it with instructions not to agree to any language allowing a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be brought to the United States for prosecution or incarceration. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 781 |
(H.Res. 829) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 780 |
(H.Res. 829 ) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 770 |
(H.R. 2647) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2647, the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on House passage of the final version, which authorized $550 billion in funding, and allowed for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay that had been announced by President Obama. It also contained a controversial provision, unrelated to defense, that designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation as a hate crime. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 769 |
(H.R. 2647) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department - - on a motion to send the measure back to the House-Senate conference committee that developed it, and eliminate any provision providing for the transfer or release of individuals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2647, the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 765 |
(H.Res. 808) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Defense Department funding bill. The rule waived points of order that could ordinarily be made against the bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 764 |
(H.Res. 808) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 761 |
(H.R. 2997) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and rural programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on House passage of the conference report on H.R. 2997. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 760 |
(H.Res. 701) A resolution recognizing the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve in Virginia as a unique and precious ecosystem Dyke Marsh is a 485 acre parcel on the edge of the Potomac River in northern Virginia, just south of Washington, DC. It is a 5,000 to 7,000 year old unique ecosystem, with more than 6,500 species of plants, insects, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians. In 1959, the area was being dredged for commercial purposes. To protect the system, Congress designated the Dyke Marsh ecosystem for protection ?so that fish and wildlife development and their preservation as wetland wildlife habitat shall be paramount''. Among the Members leading that successful effort was Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was still serving in the House in 2009. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 759 |
(H.Res. 805) A resolution that Chairman Rangel (D-NY) of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee should be removed from his position pending completion of the investigation of his activities by the Ethics Committee - - on referring the resolution to the Ethics Committee Rep. Rangel (D-NY) was chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. There had been numerous articles in the press raising questions both about whether he had been properly reporting his investments and income both on required House forms and on his state and federal tax returns. Many of those forms and returns were subsequently altered after the articles were published. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 758 |
(H.Res. 805) A resolution that Chairman Rangel (D-NY) of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee should be removed from his position pending completion of the investigation of his activities by the Ethics Committee - - on whether the House should immediately vote on referring the resolution to the Ethics Committee Rep. Rangel (D-NY) was chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. There had been numerous articles in the press raising questions both about whether he had been properly reporting his investments and income both on required House forms and on his state and federal tax returns. Many of those forms and returns were subsequently altered after the articles were published. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 757 |
(H.Res. 799) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and for the Food and Drug Administration. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. After a final version is developed, it must then be approved by each body. The bill contained $2.7 billion more than the equivalent legislation provided in fiscal year 2009. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 756 |
(H.Res. 799) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and for the Food and Drug Administration. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. After a final version is developed, it must then be approved by each body. The bill contained $2.7 billion more than the equivalent legislation provided in fiscal year 2009. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 754 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2647 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 2010 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 752 |
(H.R. 3183) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development programs The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water programs. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a vote on passage of the final version of the bill that was negotiated in the conference. It contained $35.5 billion in funding, which represented an increase of $204 million over the corresponding fiscal year 2009 level. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 749 |
(H.Res.788) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development programs - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 3183, the bill providing $35.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water programs. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version that was negotiated in the conference. The resolution restricted procedural objections, such as points of order, that ordinarily could be raised against spending bills such as this one. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 746 |
(H.R. 2892) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on a motion to instruct the House representatives to the House-Senate conference that would develop the report not to add any language that would allow the transfer to the United States of terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. (H.R. 2892) The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 743 |
(H.R. 2442) On passage of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act, which would have authorized six projects as part of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program H.R. 2442 contained six new projects to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program that were expected to save 2.6 billion gallons of water annually. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass the legislation. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 742 |
(H.R. 2997) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a motion to instruct the House representatives to the conference not to agree to a final version unless it is made available to them 72 hours before they vote on it The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a motion by Rep. Kingston (R-GA) for the House to instruct its representatives to the conference not to agree to a final version of H.R. 2997 unless it is made available to them 72 hours before they vote on it. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 740 |
(H.R. 905) On passage of legislation expanding the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron off the coast of Michigan H.R. 905 modified the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron off the coast of Michigan. The existing boundaries of the sanctuary currently contain more than 100 nationally significant historic shipwrecks. This was a vote on passage of the bill expanding the boundaries of the sanctuary to include more than 100 additional shipwrecks. This expansion would put these other shipwrecks under the protection, research, education and public outreach capabilities of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 739 |
(H.R.2918) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress; the measure also provided stop-gap funding to keep the federal government operating for a few weeks into the 2010 fiscal year pending the passage of full-year 2010 appropriation bills for all the executive branch departments and agencies The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2918, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on House passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress, which was the first conference report providing funding for 2010 to be completed and considered by the House. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 738 |
(H.R. 2918) The bill incorporating the agreement between the House and Senate on the level of fiscal year 2010 funding to be provided for the operations of Congress; the bill also provided funds to keep the executive branch of the federal government operating for six weeks into the 2010 fiscal year- - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2918, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress. When the two Houses of Congress have passed different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That conference report must then be passed by both Houses before it can be sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on H.R. 2918. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 735 |
(H. Res. 766) A bill to maintain the 2010 premium payments, for the portion of Medicare that covers physicians? services, home health care services, and many outpatient services, at their 2009 levels - - on a resolution permitting the House to debate the bill under procedures that would not allow amendments to be offered to it H.R. 3631, The Medicare Premium Fairness Act, would maintain the 2010 premium payments for Medicare Part B at their 2009 levels. Medicare Part B is the portion of Medicare that covers physicians? services, home health care services, and many outpatient services. H.R. 3631 was drafted in response to the fact that the Medicare Part B premium was scheduled to increase although social security payments to seniors were not scheduled to increase. Under usual House rules, Members may offer amendments to any bill that is being debated. This resolution would allow the House to suspend its usual rules and consider H.R. 3631 under terms that would not permit any amendments. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 734 |
(H. R. 2918) A bill to provide fiscal year 2010 funding for the Legislative Branch - - on instructing the Members who would be representing the House in the House-Senate conference on the bill not to add a resolution to that bill which would also allow the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to keep operating into fiscal year 2010 In recent years, Congress had often failed to pass spending bills for fiscal years before the beginning of those fiscal years. To maintain government operations on a temporary basis, Congress adopted the practice of passing ?continuing resolutions?, which kept Executive Branch departments and agencies operating at their previously-approved levels until it could pass spending bills for the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution issue had become contentious, with whatever party was in the minority criticizing the majority party for not being able to get spending bills passed prior to the fiscal year to which they applied. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 733 |
(H. R. 2918) A bill to provide fiscal year 2010 funding for the Legislative Branch - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on requesting a conference with the Senate to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate-passed funding bills In recent years, Congress had often failed to pass spending bills for fiscal years before the beginning of those fiscal years. To maintain government operations on a temporary basis, Congress had adopted the practice of passing ?continuing resolutions?, which kept operations going at their previously-approved levels, until it could pass a spending bill for the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution issue had become contentious, with whatever party was in the minority criticizing the majority party for not being able to get spending bills passed prior to the fiscal year to which they applied. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 728 |
(H.R. 324) On final passage of legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 324, a bill that designated the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their historic preservation and to promote their public appreciation. The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back more than 12,000 years. The designated heritage area included two national parks and two national historic trails, many prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as state and county parks, designated scenic highways back-country trails and 32 museums and 102 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 727 |
(H.R. 324) Legislation to establish the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area - - on a motion to add language requiring that each property owner give consent before his/her property could be included in the new heritage area, and that the Department of Homeland Security be consulted in the planning process for the area H.R. 324 designated the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their historic preservation and to promote their public appreciation. Some Republicans had expressed concern that the designation of national heritage areas could interfere with the rights of property owners in the designated regions. They had also expressed concern about the results of making this particular region, which was close to the U.S.-Mexican border, a national heritage area because of the potential negative effect on the efforts to prevent the importation of illegal drugs from Mexico. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 723 |
(H.Res. 760) Legislation to establish the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area - - on the resolution providing the terms under which the House could debate the bill Legislation had been developed to designate the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their preservation and to promote their public appreciation. The National Park Service has ten criteria for proposed heritage areas. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate the Santa Cruz Valley legislation. Under House procedures, before a bill can be debated, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? setting the terms for its consideration. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 719 |
(H.R.3221) On final passage of legislation providing that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans; the bill also authorized a new multi-billion-dollar federal construction program for K-12 schools, and for community colleges, and expanded federal student assistance grants and aid to historically black colleges. This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The bill made a major change in the federal student loan program. It provided that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The legislation was designed, in part, to hold down the interest rate on federal education loans, and to make it easier for families to apply for college financial aid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated that shifting new educational lending from a guaranteed third party loan program to a direct loan program would result in budgetary savings. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 718 |
(H.R.3221) The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee to add language prohibiting any of its funds being awarded to ACORN, a nation-wide association of community organizations focused on housing and voter registration H.R. 3221 amended the Higher Education Act of 1965. Among many other things, the Higher Education Act of 1965 had previously provided federal grants to ACORN, a nation-wide community organization that focuses on housing and voter registration. It had been very active in registering minority voters during the 2008 presidential campaign. ACORN had become an increasingly controversial organization, with Republicans and conservatives, in particular, arguing that it had engaged in numerous improper practices. Immediately before the consideration of H.R. 3221, it was widely reported in the press that some of the representatives of ACORN gave advice about methods for circumventing eligibility requirements of federal housing programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 717 |
(H.R. 3221) On the Guthrie of Kentucky amendment that would have extended an existing government-guaranteed student loan program operated by financial institutions, rather than changing to one in which the government directly issues student loans; the amendment would also have removed a number of new educational spending programs from the bill, including one that greatly expanded federal funding for community colleges This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Guthrie (R-KY) to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. That legislation was designed so that all new federal student loans would be originated directly by the federal government, rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The amendment would have cancelled that change, and instead extended and expanded the existing federally-guaranteed loan program operated by financial institutions. The amendment would also have created a commission to develop a new private sector model for student lending. In addition, the amendment would have removed a number of new educational spending programs from the bill, including one that greatly expanded federal funding for community colleges. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 712 |
(H.R. 3221) On the Foxx of North Carolina amendment that would have eliminated a new twelve billion dollar program designed to reform, expand and improve the effectiveness of U.S. community colleges. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Foxx (R-NC) that would have eliminated the entire ?American Graduation Initiative?, a new twelve billion dollar program to reform and expand U.S. community colleges, from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The American Graduation Initiative was designed to help adjust community college curriculums so that Americans would learn the skills needed to compete with workers from other nations, create new online learning opportunities for students, and modernize community college facilities. The Initiative was proposed by President Obama, who said it would increase the effectiveness and graduation rates of community colleges. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 711 |
(H.R. 3221) On the McMorris Rodgers of Washington amendment that would have prevented areas that received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package from receiving funds authorized by a new federal school construction program This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) that would have prevented areas that received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package from receiving funds authorized by a new federal school construction program. H.R.3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, created a new multi-billion dollar federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools. H.R. 3221 also created a new construction program for community colleges: The bill already had a provision imposing a limitation on that new construction funding going to community colleges in areas that received stimulus funding. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 710 |
(H.R. 3221) On the Hoekstra of Michigan amendment that would have eliminated three new federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools and community colleges This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) that would have eliminated three new multi-billion dollar federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. It was offered to H.R.3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 709 |
(H.R. 3221) On passage of the bill providing funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for vehicles manufactured in the U.S. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3221, The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. That bill authorized federal funding for combined public-private efforts to develop more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million for fiscal year 2010, and called for $10 million in increases for each of the following three years. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 708 |
(H.R. 3221) Legislation providing funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for vehicles manufactured in the U.S. - - on the motion to insert language preventing the spending of any additional funding authorized by the legislation until all other federal funds for that had previously been authorized for the development of similar vehicle energy technologies had been spent. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to recommit (send back to committee) the bill providing additional funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million for this advanced vehicle technology development in 2010, and called for $10 million in increases for each of the following three years. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 705 |
(H. R. 3246) On to the Hall of Texas amendment that would have frozen, at the fiscal year 2010 level through fiscal year 2013, a funding program for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The amendment would also have eliminated that funding in fiscal year 2014. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hall (R-TX) to H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. That bill authorized additional federal funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million in 2010 to develop these technologies, and increased the amount successively by $10 million in each of the following three years. The Hall amendment would have frozen funding for this vehicle energy program through fiscal year 2013 at $550 million, and ended the funding after the 2013 fiscal year. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 703 |
(H. Res. 746) Legislation ending government-guaranteed education loans by third parties, and increasing the level of direct government education lending to students - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for considering the bill Under the provisions of H.R.322, all new federal student loans will be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The legislation was designed, in part, to hold down the interest rate on federal education loans, and to make it easier for families to apply for college financial aid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated that shifting new educational lending from a guaranteed third party loan program to a direct loan program would generate significant budgetary savings. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 699 |
(H. Res. 744) On a resolution expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the conduct of Rep. Wilson (R-SC) for yelling at President Obama during the president?s speech to a joint session of Congress on health care legislation. Rep. Wilson (R-SC) yelled out ?you lie? to President Obama during a September 9, 2009 speech the president delivered to a joint session of Congress on health care legislation. Wilson made the remark after President Obama said that no illegal aliens would be able to benefit from the changes made by the health care legislation. Rep. Wilson subsequently called The White House to apologize for his behavior, but he refused to make a formal apology to the House. This resolution was drafted in response to his refusal to do so. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 695 |
(H.R.965) On final passage of a bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network This vote was on passage of H.R. 965, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. The Chesapeake Bay Network was characterized by Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for making it permanent, as a ?highly successful? program. It had been described by the Bush Administration as a ?cooperative conservation success story.?' More than 10 million people annually visit one of the 166 gateway sites supported by the program. They kayak, canoe, hike, bike, picnic, hunt, fish, watch wildlife, or visit one of its maritime museums or historic sites. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 694 |
(H.R.965) Legislation providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and add language preventing the bill from becoming effective until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion. This vote was on a motion by Rep. Hastings (R-WA) to recommit to committee H.R. 965, the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. The motion would also have added language to the bill preventing it from becoming effective until the deficit is less than $1 trillion. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 689 |
(H.R.3123) On passage of a measure that would have directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy public health and environmental problems that had been caused by a collapse in the Leadville, Colorado Mine Drainage Tunnel This vote was on passage of H.R 3123, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2009. It directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy problems that had been caused by a collapse in the tunnel, which carries water from old mines to a treatment plant north of Leadville, Colorado. These problems related to the possibility that blockage resulting from the collapse in the tunnel could give way, releasing a flood of water and built-up toxic debris. The uncertainty as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation or the Environmental Protection Agency was responsible for dealing with the blockage had prevented an agreement being reached on a long-term solution to the situation. This bill was intended to clarify that uncertainty. ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Mining Industry |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 687 |
(H.R. 324) On passage of a bill that would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in southern Arizona This vote was on passage of H.R. 324, which would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in southern Arizona. National heritage areas have been established to preserve sections that are of ?national significance.? The term ?national significance? has been used in this context by The National Park Service as meaning that the areas possesses ?unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational resources of exceptional value or quality.? Twenty-four national heritage areas have been established by Congress. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 686 |
(H.R. 3269) On passage of a bill that gave federal regulatory agencies authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and also increased the level of shareholder input on the way the pay and bonuses are determined This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3269, a bill that gave federal regulatory agencies the authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and also imposed new restrictions on the manner in which executive pay and bonuses are determined. The bill had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives at banks and other financial institutions were receiving, particularly at those receiving federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. H.R. 3269 also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on pay and bonuses for executives. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 685 |
(H.R. 3269) Legislation that gave federal banking regulatory agencies authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and increased shareholder input into the way in which executive pay and bonuses were determined - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and have language added requiring the disclosure of information about any persons or organizations spending funds to influence the outcome of a shareholder vote on the level of executive pay and bonuses This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Sessions (R-TX) to recommit H.R. 3269. That bill imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the level of executive pay and bonuses was determined, and gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures. H.R. 3269 also mandated that all publicly traded companies hold an annual, non-binding shareholder vote on the level of pay and bonuses for their executives. The bill had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. The motion made by Rep. Sessions would have also added language to H.R.3269 that required the disclosure of information about any persons or organizations that spent funds in an effort to influence the outcome of the annual shareholder vote on executive pay and bonuses required by the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 684 |
(H.R. 3269) On the Garrett of New Jersey amendment, which would have modified or removed many provisions of pending legislation that imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the amount of pay and bonuses paid to executives was determined This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Garrett (R-NJ), which would have made a number of changes in H.R. 3269. That bill gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals, as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements. H.R. 3269 also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on the pay and bonuses for executives. It had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 683 |
(H.R. 3269) On the Frank of Massachusetts amendment permitting the government to require executives at banks that had received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business to give back a portion of their annual bonuses This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA), which would eliminate certain prohibitions on the ability of the federal government to require the return of certain annual bonuses paid to banking executives. There had been a great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. H.R. 3269 was developed partly in response to that outcry. The bill gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 682 |
(H.R. 3435) On passage of a bill that provided two billion dollars in additional funding for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program; that program provided cash rebates of a few thousand dollars each to consumers to encourage them to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better gas mileage This was a vote on H.R. 3435, which provided two billion dollars in additional funding for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that encouraged consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better mileage. Congress had originally passed legislation which created the program and provided one billion dollars in cash rebates, of a few thousand dollars each, to consumers. The goal was to encourage consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better gas mileage. The program was intended to reduce gas consumption and to stimulate new car sales. It was so successful, that the billion dollars in original funding was going to be quickly exhausted. Additional funding was needed. This legislation allowed the administration to transfer up to two billion dollars of previously-approved funds to the Cash for Clunkers program from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program. It was not anticipated that the loan guarantee program would need those funds for at least a year. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 681 |
(H.R. 1752) On passage of a measure that would have allowed the House Administration Committee to make the day for paying salaries of House of Representative employees consistent with the rest of the federal government. The measure was in part a response to the frustration that House employees had expressed about the existing pay schedule. This vote was on passage of H.R. 1752, which would have allowed the House Administration Committee to regulate the payment schedule for employees of the House of Representatives to conform to usual accounting practices. The payment schedule for employees of the House was the last day of each month. Under H.R. 1752, the House Administration Committee would have been given the authority to set an alternative pay schedule, such as bi-weekly or semi-monthly. Both the House Inspector General and Chief Administrative Officer had advised the House that the last day of the month pay system was inconsistent with the rest of the federal government and also required deviations from commonly use business software. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that it would cost approximately one million dollars over a two year period to modify the relevant computer systems to make the change to bi-weekly payments. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 680 |
(H.R. 2749) On final passage of a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food. Among the provisions of H.R. 2746, , as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 679 |
(H.R. 2749) Legislation designed to improve the monitoring of domestic and imported food - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee, with instructions to add language directing the Food and Drug Administration to spend new revenues generated by the bill on purchases of food from producers before it comes to market, and on additional food inspections This was a motion by Rep. Lucas (R-OK) to send H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring of domestic and imported food, back to committee with instructions to add language directing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on methods for spending the new revenues generated by the bill. Those new methods included advance purchases of food from producers to allow for its examination before it comes to market, and on additional food inspections. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 677 |
(H. Res. 691) Legislation designed to improve the monitoring for safety of domestic and imported food - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate for H.R. 2749, which was designed to improve the monitoring for safety of both domestic and imported food. The rule did not permit any amendments to be offered to the bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 676 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 674 |
(H.R. 3326) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Defense - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and add money for the procurement for 12 additional F-22 fighter planes. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) to send the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Defense back to the Appropriations Committee. The motion also included instructions to the committee to add money for procurement of 12 additional F-22 fighters and to allow the F-22 program to move forward. In addition, the instructions were for the committee to provide an additional $100 million for the Army military personnel accounts, and to reduce $400 million for Presidential helicopters to pay for the increases. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Military Contractors WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 673 |
(H.R. 3326) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have deleted an earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA), which would have eliminated a $1,500.000 earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project. It was offered to H.R. 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Campbell, had been critical of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. They had been offering a series of amendments to delete many of those earmarks. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
(H.R. 3326) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated 70 individual earmarks from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated 70 earmarks, amounting to almost $200 million, from H.R. 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as these, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 663 |
(H.R. 3326) On the Tierney of Massachusetts amendment, which would have eliminated funding for the anti-missile Kinetic Energy Defense Interceptor Program This was a vote on an amendment, which would have eliminated funding for the Kinetic Energy Missile Defense Interceptor Program. This program was intended to develop and deploy U.S. missiles that could intercept and destroy enemy missiles. The amendment was offered by Rep. Tierney (D-MA) to H.R 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 661 |
(H.R. 3326) On the Murtha of Pennsylvania amendment, which redirected some of the funds originally designated to purchase additional F-22 fighter planes to the acquisition of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s This was a vote on an amendment redirecting some of the funds originally designated for the purchase of additional F-22 fighter planes to the acquisition of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s, and making certain other changes, in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense. Among the other changes made by this amendment, which was offered by Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the funding bill, was the addition of $79,000,000 for Air National Guard equipment and of $50,000,000 for advanced radar development. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Military Contractors WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 657 |
(H.R. 2749) On passing the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, which was designed to improve the monitoring of both domestic and imported food for safety This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Among the provisions of the legislation, as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group of inspectors dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
(H. Res. 690) On a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have disapproved the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with the House Members? special rights to send official mail without postage were carrying out their responsibilities This vote was on a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have disapproved the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with the House?s special mailing rights were carrying out their responsibilities. The resolution had been offered by House Republican Leader Boehner (R-OH) as a ?privileged? matter, which meant it would have been immediately taken up by the House. After it was offered, House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) moved that the resolution be tabled (killed). HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
(H. Res. 685) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense - - on passage of the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 3326 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the bill. That rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 654 |
(H. Res. 685) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense -- on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill This was a motion to bring to an immediate vote, the resolution setting the terms of debate for H.R. 3326; that bill provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 651 |
(H.R. 556) On passage of a bill directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population This was a vote on passage of H.R. 556, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act. The bill directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population. That population had experienced very slow growth over the previous decade because of high death rates. The causes of death included disease and parasites, malnutrition and entanglement in fishing gear. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
(H.R. 3293) On final passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3293, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education .The bill included more than $160 billion in spending for the three departments. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
(H.R. 3293) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee to have one billion dollars added for special education programs This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS), which would have send the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education back to the Appropriations Committee. The motion would have also required the committee to add one billion dollars to the bill for special education programs, and reduce various other categories in the bill by an equal amount. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
(H.R. 3293) On the Wittman of Virginia amendment, which would have reduced the total in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education by $803 million This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Wittman (R-V A) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The amendment would have reduced total funding in the bill by $803 million or .5% of its total amount EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
(H.R. 3293) On the Pence of Indiana amendment, which would have prohibited any family planning and preventive health services funds from being awarded to the Planned Parenthood organization This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Pence (R-IN) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. The amendment would have prohibited any family planning and preventive health services funds in the bill from going to the Planned Parenthood organization. The web site of the House Republican Conference, which informed Republican Members about proposed amendments to pending legislation, claimed that Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of federal family planning money, having received ?nearly $350 million of American taxpayer money? in 2007 and 2008. It also said that Planned Parenthood was ?the largest abortion provider in America.? The site claimed that ?one in every five (U.S). abortions occurs at a Planned Parenthood facility.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 642 |
(H.R. 3293) On the Souder of Indiana amendment; the amendment would have prohibited any amounts in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services to be devoted to hypodermic needles that could conceivably be used by those taking illegal drugs This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Souder (R-IN) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being devoted to hypodermic needles that could conceivably be used by those taking illegal drugs. H.R. 3293 included language that allowed federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs: That language was intended to reduce the incidence of HIV. HEALTH CARE— Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, Domestic JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 641 |
(H.R. 3293) On agreeing to the Obey of Wisconsin amendment, which made a number of additions and reductions to the bill providing $161 billion in 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; none of the changes was for more than $10 million, and the total of all increases was offset by the total of all reductions. This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which developed H.R.3293, the bill that provided $161 billion in 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The amendment made a number of increases and decreases in various spending programs in the measure, the total of which left overall spending in the bill at the $161 billion figure. The largest change was a $10 million increase in grants that could be made by the Department of Education to charter school program management organizations, and all increases were offset by the total of all reductions. It is not unusual for a committee chairman to offer an amendment, making a number of changes to a bill developed in his or her committee, when it is debated on the House floor. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
(H. Res. 673) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education -- on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R.3293 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The bill included $161 billion in spending. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the funding bill. The most controversial element of the rule was the language that limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 639 |
(H. Res. 673) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R.3293 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It included $161 billion in spending. This was on a motion to have the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms of debate of the bill. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 638 |
The Price of Georgia amendment, which would have overturned the prohibition on the possession of guns that several housing authorities had imposed - - on a procedural move to allow the amendment to be offered Several housing authorities in large cities had imposed prohibitions on the possession of guns. Rep. Price (R-GA) wanted to offer an amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would have overturned those prohibitions. The chair ruled his effort to offer the amendment was out of order. He appealed that ruling to the House. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) the appeal by Price of the ruling of the chair JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 637 |
(H.R.3288) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation This was a vote on House passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The bill included $123 billion in spending - - $47 billion for HUD programs and $76 billion for transportation infrastructure and support. Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, said that the bill ?has emphasized investments in five key areas: One, building healthy communities with environmentally sustainable solutions; two, maintaining services in rural communities; three, supporting vulnerable populations; four, investing in the national infrastructure; and, five, ensuring transportation safety.? He also said that the level of HUD funding ?recognizes that foreclosure rates remain high and the current (poor) economic climate and weak job market have increased demand for affordable housing.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 636 |
(H.R.3288) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee to reduce all spending figures to the amounts requested by the Obama Administration H.R. 3288 provided fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Latham (R-IA) to recommit (send the bill back) to the Appropriations Committee. The motion also included instructions to the committee to reduce the spending figures in any category that exceed the amount requested by the Obama Administration to those requested levels. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 635 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment, which would have deleted $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have deleted $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program. It was offered to H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling had been constantly criticizing ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 634 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment, which would have deleted $2,000,000 earmarked for the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have deleted $2,000,000, earmarked for the reconfiguration of the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. It was offered to H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The Golden Gate Bridge is owned and operated by the state of California, which charges tolls on it. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been regularly criticizing ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 633 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for Rib Mountain Drive in Wisconsin This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000, earmarked for additional turn lanes, signals and a sidewalk on Rib Mountain Drive near Wausau Wisconsin, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He repeated arguments he had been making against many earmarks in a series of spending bills. He first asked, rhetorically, ?why are we paying for a roadway that doesn't serve an interstate purpose . . . it's a parochial interest.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 632 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in Pennsylvania This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in New Castle, Pennsylvania, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The supporters of the technology park claimed it would create ?new advanced job opportunities by providing small to large forward-thinking companies with pre-permitted, shovel-ready sites.?' MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 631 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Monroe County Farmer's Market in Kentucky This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000, earmarked for the Monroe County, Kentucky Farmer's Market construction project, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $400,000 earmarked for the renovation of a vacant building in Jal, New Mexico This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $400,000, earmarked for the renovation of a vacant building to promote economic development in Jal, New Mexico. The earmark is was in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 629 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 627 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the terminal replacement project at Grand Forks, North Dakota International Airport This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the terminal replacement project at Grand Forks International Airport in Grand Forks, North Dakota from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 626 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Stearns of Florida, which would have reduced the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation by 25% This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stearns (R-FL) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation by 25%. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 625 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Neugebauer of Texas amendment, which would have reduced the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation by $13.5 billion This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation by $13.5 billion. The resulting amount would have equaled the funding provided to those departments in the 2009 fiscal year. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 624 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Jordan of Ohio amendment, which would have reduced the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation by $20 billion This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jordan (R-OH) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Transportation by $20 billion. The $20 billion dollar reduction would have put the funding for those departments at the same levels they were at in the 2008 fiscal year. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment, which would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in the fiscal year 2010 funding, not otherwise required by law, for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. The amendment would have made a 5% across-the-board reduction in all funding in the bill that was not otherwise required by law. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 621 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Latham of Iowa amendment, which would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for high speed rail service by three billion dollars. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Latham (R-IA) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation. The amendment would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for high speed rail service by three billion dollars, from the four billion dollars in the bill back to the one billion dollars requested by the Obama Administration. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
(H.R. 3288) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment, which would have eliminated $250 million in funding from a HUD program that provides grants to local housing authorities to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amendment would have eliminated funding for HUD's HOPE VI program, which receives $250 million in the underlying bill. The program provides competitive grants to local housing authorities to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website noted that the HOPE VI program ?has completed its goal of contributing to the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 617 |
(H.Res. 669) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 3288 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. Included in H.R. 3288 was a total $41.1 billion in federal spending. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill included a limitation on the number of amendments that Members could offer. This was a vote on the rule. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
Legislation designed to overcome a court decision that reduced the flow of water in the California Central Valley - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling of the chair that a move to bring the legislation to a vote was not in order There had been an ongoing dispute between farmers and environmentalists regarding the protection of a small fish that lives in the Sacramento River in the Central Valley of California. The environmentalists had won a federal court ruling to limit water flow in the river in order to protect the fish. This dispute was occurring during a period of severe drought, which was causing major problems for Central Valley farmers. Legislation designed to overcome the court ruling, called the ?Turn on the Pumps Act?, had been introduced by Members representing the Central Valley. That bill had been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which would not report it to the full House for consideration. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 612 |
(H.R. 2920) On final passage of legislation designed to control the federal deficit; this would be accomplished by requiring any reductions in federal revenues to be offset by new revenue increases, and any additions to federal spending to be offset by other spending reductions This was a vote on House passage of the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. This Act required that any action reducing federal revenues be offset by new revenue increases, and any spending increases be offset with other spending reductions. It also required an automatic reduction in federal spending in the event that the Act was violated. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
(H.R. 2920) Legislation designed to control the federal deficit; the bill required any reductions in federal revenues to be offset by new revenue increases, and any additions to federal spending to be offset by other spending reductions - - on a motion to impose new limits on federal spending in fiscal years 2011 through 2013 This was on a motion by Rep. Ryan (R-WI) to recommit legislation known as the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act to committee with instructions to add language that would have imposed new limits on federal spending in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. The ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act required that any action reducing federal revenues be offset by new revenue increases, and any federal spending increases be offset with other spending reductions. The Ryan motion would also have imposed a requirement that the Congressional Budget Office report the interest costs of all legislation, and also calculate the spending impact of all provisions included in all House-Senate reports which reconcile any differences in the versions of the same legislation passed by the House and the Senate. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
(H.R. 2920) On the Ryan of Wisconsin amendment to the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act; the amendment would have imposed limits on spending increases and total federal spending that would be determined by the rate of inflation and by the level of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product The ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act, as it was being debated, required that any change in the law reducing revenues or increasing spending be offset by other changes making up for the reduced revenue or increased spending. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ryan (R-WI) that would have significantly changed the terms of the measure. The approach of the Ryan Amendment was to cap all discretionary spending increases at the same percentage as the inflation rate, and to cap total spending at a designated percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. Ryan described the basis of his proposal as relating the federal budget directly to the size and capacity of the economy. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
(H.Res. 665) Legislation requiring any changes in federal law that reduce revenue or increase spending be fully offset by other revenue increases or spending reductions - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of H.R. 2920, the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. The Act required that any future change in the law reducing federal revenues or increasing federal spending be fully offset by other revenue increases or spending reductions. The ?Pay-As-You-Go?Act also included a provision requiring an automatic reduction in federal spending in the event that the legislation was violated. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
(H.R.2729) On passage of the bill authorizing the designation of national environmental research parks by the Secretary of Energy On a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R.2729, which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to designate national environmental research parks. The bill specifically authorized the designation of six existing locations in various parts of the country. The purpose of the parks is to provide facilities for scientific research on a range of subjects, including plant development, biomass energy production, environmental behavior, revegetation of lands, and the effects of increased temperature on fresh water ecosystems. The parks were also intended to provide facilities to educate the public on environmental sciences. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 592 |
(H.R. 3183) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on House passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The total expenditures in H.R. 3183 were more than $33 billion, which was approximately the same as the corresponding fiscal year 2009 figure and $1.1 billion less than the amount requested by the Obama Administration. The economic stimulus bill enacted earlier in the session had provided an additional $44 billion to the agencies funded by H.R. 3183. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 590 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the purchase of automated remote electric and water meters by South River, N.J. from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the utilities owned by South River N.J. from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The funds are to be used to buy automated remote electric and water meters. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have eliminated a $6.2 million earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $6.2 million earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated a $1,600,000 earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a $1,600,000 earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of which Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated a $2,000,000 earmark for the West Coast Port of Embarkation site from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a $2,000,000 earmark for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 Project at the West Coast Port of Embarkation site from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for researching ethanol at Arkansas State University from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated $500,000 in funding for researching the potential of generating ethanol from agricultural products at The Arkansas State University Biosciences Institute from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Campbell of California amendment that would have eliminated a $1,000,000 earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building in Massachusetts from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) that would have eliminated a $1,000,000 earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building project at the Housatonic River Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An ?earmark? is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. legislatively mandated grant or project inserted at the request of an individual Member in a funding bill. Several Republican Members, including Campbell, had been trying to have a number of earmarks removed from funding bills. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 580 |
(H.R. 3183) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment that would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in all discretionary amounts in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The amendment would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in all discretionary amounts in the bill, which would have reduced its total amount by $1.7 billion. Rep. Blackburn noted in her remarks that federal spending on energy and water programs increased by 183% between 2006 and 2009, with the programs funded by the 2010 bill having already $51 billion in stimulus funding and $7 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal year 2009. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
(H. R. 1018) On final passage of the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, which was designed to protect wild horses and burros. This was a vote on the House passage of H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act. The legislation was enacted, in large part, in response to a Bureau of Land Management announcement that it intended to kill 30,000 healthy horses and burros in its care and a Government Accountability Office review documenting many shortcomings in the federal horse and burro program. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 575 |
(H. Res, 563) Legislation designed to protect wild horses and burros - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the debate of H.R. 1018, legislation aimed at preventing roundups during which horses and burros were mistreated, promoting adoption of wild horses and burros who are taken off the range, and banning their sale or transfer for their processing into commercial products by the Bureau of Land Management. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
(H. Res, 653) Legislation designed to protect wild horses and burros - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 1018 was aimed at preventing roundups during which horses and burros were mistreated, promoting adoption of wild horses and burros that are taken off the range, and banning their sale or transfer for processing into commercial products by the Bureau of Land Management. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
A resolution to prevent the FCC from implementing the ?Fairness Doctrine?, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a balanced way - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that the resolution was not in order The Fairness Doctrine is a rule of the Federal Communications Commission that requires the holders of broadcast license to present, in a balanced way, controversial issues of public importance. Rep. Walden (R-OR) had offered a ?privileged? resolution that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to implement the doctrine; the House is required to vote on privileged resolutions immediately. However, the Walden resolution had been ruled out of order based on a precedent that a privileged resolution could not be used to prevent the FCC from implementing a regulation. Rep Walden had appealed that ruling. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) his appeal. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 571 |
(H. R. 3170) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3170, providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The bill provided $24.15 billion in funding, which represented a 7% increase above the fiscal year 2009 level. The funding focused on five areas: Supporting and expanding the regulatory agencies; providing capital and other assistance grants to small businesses and low-income communities, including $236 million more for the Small Business Administration and $137 million more for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; supporting, and accommodating the additional work load of the federal courts; providing for tax collections and taxpayer assistance by the IRS; funding many of the operations of the local government of the District of Columbia. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
(H.R.3170) On tabling (killing) an appeal of a ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to prohibit federal funds from being used by the District of Columbia to perform abortions was out of order This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to prohibit federal funds from being used by the District of Columbia to perform abortions was out of order. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 568 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to, which would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse in Pennsylvania. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Tech Belt Life Sciences project of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse is a private-public partnership that assists entrepreneurial life science enterprises in western Pennsylvania. An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project that is inserted into an appropriations bill at the request of a particular member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona, which would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in South Carolina. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the expansion of the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle, Beach, South Carolina. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, would have eliminated a $125,000 earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program in Pennsylvania. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $125,000 earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program of the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. This earmark was designed to provide funding to small and medium-sized business in the area with additional support in the government contracting and acquisition process. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona, which would have eliminated $90,000 earmarked for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in California. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $90,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in Watsonville, California. The funding was for the purchase of industrial kitchen equipment for food service microenterprise to be used by this small business incubator. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated $100,000 earmarked for the Florida Institute of Technology. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Activity Based Total Accountability Project of the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated $150,000 earmarked in the bill for the Green Business Incubator in Maryland. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $150,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Green Business Incubator project of Montgomery County, Maryland. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from appropriation bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated $200,000 earmarked for the Greenstone Group project, a small business incubator in Minnesota. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $200,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Greenstone Group project of the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, a small business incubator located in Virginia, Minnesota. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated $200,000 that had been earmarked for the Commercial Driver Training Institute of Arkansas State University. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $200,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Commercial Driver Training Institute project of Arkansas State University. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Broun of Georgia amendment, which would have prohibited any funds going to the president?s ?climate czar?, deputy ?climate czar?, or the Council on Environmental Quality. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Council on Environmental Quality, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from going to the Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the so-called ?climate czar?, the Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the so-called ?deputy climate czar?, or any position in the Council on Environmental Quality. Rep Broun said he offered this amendment as a way to stop an executive branch practice of avoiding Senate confirmation requirements and congressional oversight by appointing officials such as the ones for whom his amendment would prohibit funding. Broun acknowledged both Democratic and Republican administrations have engaged in this practice. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have reduced all discretionary funding in the bill by 5%. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have made an across-the-board cut of 5% in all discretionary funding in the bill. H.R. 3170 had $24 billion of discretionary spending, which meant that the amendment would have reduced the amount by $1.2 billion. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Emerson of Missouri amendment, which would have eliminated half of the funding for state grants made by the Election Assistance Commission This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Emerson (R-MO) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Election Assistance Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have reduced the amount for state grants to be awarded by the Election Assistance Commission to the $50 million level that was requested by President Obama, from the $100 million figure that was in the bill. The Commission is responsible for developing guidelines for voting systems and for making grants to states to help implement changes in those systems. In the 2000 presidential election, more than two million ballots were ruled ineligible because they registered multiple votes, or did not register any vote, when run through vote-counting machines. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
(H.R. 3170) On the Price of Georgia which would have eliminated funding for the President's Council of Economic Advisers. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the President?s Council of economic Advisors, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated the $4.2 million in H.R. 3170 that was designated to fund the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Price acknowledged that his amendment ?is more than a vote to eliminate funding. It is a vote of ?no confidence? on this (Obama) administration's economic policies and those of the Council of Economic Advisers.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
(H. Res, 644) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 3170 provided fiscal 2010 year funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. The rule for H.R. 3170 permitted a limited number of amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
(H. Res, 644) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 3170 provided fiscal 2010 year funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the bill. The rule for H.R. 3170 permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Pastor of Arizona amendment adding $45 million to the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program, reducing the administrative budget for the Department of Energy by $30 million, and making a number of other funding changes in the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding bill This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Pastor (D-AZ) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development programs. The amendment made a number of changes among categories to this $33.3 billion measure. The largest change added $45 million to the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program, $30 million of which was offset by a reduction in Departmental of Energy administration costs and $15 million of which was offset by a reduction in the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program. Rep. Pastor, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, was managing the bill on the House floor. It is not uncommon for a bill manager to offer an amendment that makes a number of changes in a bill he or she is managing. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 3183 provided fiscal 2010 year funding for energy and water development. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of H.R. 3183. The rule provides the terms under which the legislation will be considered, including the amendments that will be made in order to be offered. The rule for H.R. 3183 permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 3183 provided fiscal 2010 year energy and water development funding. This was a vote on a motion to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. The rule permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs - - on the resolution setting the terms for consideration of the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The rule for the bill permitted very few amendments to be offered during its consideration. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of appropriation bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for consideration of the bill This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The rule for the bill permitted very few amendments to be offered during its consideration. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
(H.R.3081) On passage of the fiscal year 2010 State Department funding bill. This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 3081, the fiscal year 2010 State Department appropriation bill. H.R. 3081provided $48.4 billion to fund what Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, called ?our foreign policy and national security interests.? The total figure was $3.2 billion below the amount requested by the Obama administration and $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 level. Among its major expenditures was $4.7 billion to help stabilize, strengthen, and rebuild Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
(H.R.3081) Legislation providing the fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and reduce the amount for the Organization of American States by $15 million, and increase the amount for the National Endowment for Democracy by the same amount. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Kirk (R-IL) to send the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department back to committee with instructions that would have reduced the funds for the Organization of American States (OAS) by $15 million, and increased funds for the National Endowment for Democracy by the same amount. The National Endowment for Democracy is a private organization, funded primarily through an annual congressional allocation, which provides grants and publishes periodicals. It has reportedly been accused by both right-wing and left-wing groups of interfering with foreign regimes, and of being a mechanism that legally enables the CIA to continue its otherwise prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
(H.R. 3081) On tabling (killing) an appeal of a ruling of the Speaker that a motion to add language in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to all legislation was out of order This was a vote to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a motion was out of order. The motion that had been ruled out of order would have sent a bill the House was considering back to committee with instructions to add language in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to be offered to all legislation. The ruling was actually made by a Democratic Member who was sitting in the chair in the place of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA). The Republicans appealed the ruling. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated an $8 million special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have eliminated a one-time $8 million special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program from the bill. Rep. Flake had been a leading opponent of ?earmarks in spending bills. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. He noted that the report accompanying H.R. 3081 said there were no earmarks in the bill. Flake referenced this grant program and said ?I would have to disagree.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Culberson of Texas amendment reducing fiscal year 2010 funding for international political, military and economic organizations, including the U.N., back to their fiscal year 2009 levels. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Culberson (R-TX) to the bill appropriating fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have reduced the amounts in the bill for international political, military and economic organizations, including the U.N., back to their fiscal year 2009 levels plus inflation. Participation by the U.S. in these multilateral organizations are intended to advance U.S. strategic goals by addressing challenges that require international consultation and coordination. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Weiner of New York amendment eliminating language allowing funds to go to Saudi Arabia if the President certifies that it is combating terrorism. The amendment was offered to the bill appropriating fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep.Weiner (D-NY) to H.R. 3081, the bill appropriating funds fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The bill did not permit any funds to go to Saudi Arabia, unless the President certified that Saudi Arabia is ?fully cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and such (financial) assistance will facilitate these efforts.? The amendment deleted this language, thereby insuring that none of the appropriated funds would go to Saudi Arabia. WAR & PEACE— Relations with Saudi Arabia |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Stearns of Florida amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department; the amendment would have reduced funding for the Peace Corps by $76,560,000 to match the President's request. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Stearns (R-FL) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have reduced the amount appropriated to The Peace Corps by $76,560,000 to match the President's request of $373,440,000. In fiscal year 2009, the Peace Corps was funded at $340 million. President Obama had requested $373.4 million, an increase of $33 million or approximately 10%. H.R. 3081 had Peace Crops funding of $450 million, or $77 million more than what President Obama had requested, and $110 million above the FY 2009 level. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries WAR & PEACE— Peace Corps Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Buyer of Indiana amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department; the amendment would have reduced funding for diplomatic and consular programs, global health efforts and the Agency for International Development back to their fiscal year 2009 levels. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Buyer (R-IN) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have reduced funding for diplomatic and consular programs by $1.2 billion, for global health efforts by $670 million, and for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by $330 million. The resulting figures would reduce the funding for these three categories back to their 2009 fiscal year levels. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
(H.R. 3081) On the Lowey of New York amendment making a number of changes to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department. The most significant of the changes increased international safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million, and restricted foreign military financing to Sri Lanka. This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep.Lowey (D-NY) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment made a number of changes to spending categories, the largest of which increased international safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million,to this $44.8 billion bill. The safe water program and other increases were offset by reductions to the Department of State Capital Investment Fund and USAID's Capital Investment Fund. The amendment also restricted foreign military financing to Sri Lanka, but included up to $1 million for Sri Lanken demining activities to help the Sri Lankan Government return the Tamil population displaced by the recent war to their homes. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
(H.Res.617) On agreeing to the rule setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department. This was a vote on the ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The rule for H.R. 3081 permitted only certain designated amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the limitations on amendments that had been imposed on a series of appropriation bills the House had considered. Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or rule setting the terms under which the legislation will be debated. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
(H.Res.617) On moving immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department. This was a vote on ?ordering the previous question? and bringing to an immediate vote the ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The rule for H.R. 3081 permitted only certain designated amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the limitations on amendments that had been imposed on a series of appropriation bills the House had considered. Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or rule setting the terms under which the legislation will be debated. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
(H.R.2965) On a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a procedural ruling. The ruling had prevented a vote on adding language to H.R. 2965 that said unlimited amendments should be allowed to all funding bills the House considered. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a resolution was out of order. The resolution had been offered by Rep. Price (R-GA). It would have committed the House ?report out open rules for all general appropriations bills?, to ?practice fiscal restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway Federal spending?, and to have ?an open and transparent appropriations process . . . .? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
(H. R. 2997) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2997 providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and related agencies. The bill provided almost $23 billion in funding, which represented an $11billion increase over corresponding 2009 levels. Most of that increase went toward the Women, Infants and Children food program, the FDA, and International Food Aid. The bill also included a total reduction of more than $735 million from certain 2009 spending categories. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
(H.R.2965) On a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a procedural ruling. The ruling had prevented a vote on adding language to H.R. 2965 that said unlimited amendments should be allowed to all legislation the House considered. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a motion to recommit the bill and add certain specified language was out of order. The motion had been made by Rep.Kingston (R-GA). The language he sought to add was that it was the sense of the House that it should adhere to statements made in 2000 by Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI), Those statements favored permitting unlimited amendments to be offered to legislation. Obey, a Democrat, made them when the Republicans had control of the House. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Kingston of Georgia Amendment, which would have prohibited any money in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and rural programs from being used for rural broadband loan and loan guarantee programs before September 15, 2010. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Kingston (R-GA) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The amendment would have prohibited any money in the bill designated for the broadband loan and loan guarantee programs being used before September 15, 2010. The amount of funding for rural broadband programs in H.R. 2997, was approximately $400 million, which had been the same amount allotted for this purpose in recent years. An additional two and a half billion dollars for the Department of Agriculture broadband grant and loan programs had been included in the massive economic stimulus package that passed earlier in the session. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Flake of Arizona Amendment, which would have eliminated $1,000,000 earmarked for the Agriculture Energy Innovation Center in Georgia This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated $1,000,000, earmarked for research and education activities at the University of Georgia Agriculture Energy Innovation Center from the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Flake of Arizona Amendment, which would have eliminated $638,000 earmarked for a project at the Environmental Management Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated $638,000, earmarked for a project being undertaken at the Environmental Management Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland. The project focused on the use of bi-products of a process in which certain types of sand are used to form molds for metal castings. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. The funding for this project was included in the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Campbell of California Amendment, which would have eliminated $235,000, earmarked for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture research and education activities on specialty crops in Indiana This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA), which would have eliminated $235,000, earmarked for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture research and education activities on specialty crops in Indiana. The amendment was offered to the a bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Hensarling of Texas Amendment that would have eliminated $200,000 ?earmarked? for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX),which would have would have eliminated $200,000 that was ?earmarked? for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project in Kiski Basin, Pennsylvania. The amendment was offered to the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Blackburn of Tennessee Amendment that would have reduced overall discretionary spending by 5% in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The amendment would have reduced overall discretionary spending in H.R. 2997 by 5%. Total funding in the bill amounted to $22.9 billion. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
(H. R. 2997) On the Broun of Georgia Amendment that would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for the Food and Drug Administration by $373 million This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration (?FDA?) and related agencies. The amendment would have returned the 2010 fiscal year funding for the FDA back to its fiscal year 2009 level by reducing the amount provided for it in H.R. 2997 by $373 million. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
(H. R. 2997) On the DeLauro of Connecticut Amendment, which made a series of changes totaling $5.5 million to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) to H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. DeLauro was the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997. The amendment transferred approximately $5.5 million dollars within a number of categories in the bill, which provided a total of $22.9 billion to the departments and agencies it funded. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a procedural vote to decide whether the House should reconsider its previous decision to approve the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was one of a series of votes resulting from procedural tactics of the Republican minority to protest what it said was the unfair limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. This vote was formally on the motion to reconsider the previous decision to approve the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R.2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R.2997 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R.2997. The rule l permitted very few amendments to be offered during its consideration. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a procedural vote to decide whether the House should reconsider its previous decision to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was one of a series of votes resulting from procedural tactics of the Republican minority to protest what it said was the unfair limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. This vote was formally on the motion to reconsider the previous decision to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R.2997. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on bringing to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2997. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The rule for H.R. 2997 permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The vote on whether to move to an immediate vote is known as ?ordering the previous question.? The Rules Committee parliamentary web site notes that, ?in order to amend a rule . . . the House must vote against ordering the previous question.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
(H.Res. 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a procedural motion relating to whether the House should bring up and consider the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was one of a series of votes resulting from procedural tactics of the Republican majority to protest what it said was the unfair limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. This vote was formally on the motion to have the House bring up and consider the resolution or ?rule? that set the terms for consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, for rural development, and for the Food and Drug Administration. Among the terms in that rule were limitations on the number of amendments that could be offered when that spending bill was being considered. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
(H.R.2965)On tabling (killing) an appeal of a ruling of the Speaker of the House that a motion in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to all legislation was out of order This was a vote to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a motion was out of order. The motion that had been ruled out of order would have sent a bill the House was considering back to committee with instructions to add language in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to be offered to all legislation. The ruling was actually made by a Democratic Member who was sitting in the chair in the place of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA). The Republicans appealed the ruling. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
(H.Res. 610) Legislation reauthorizing funding for the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2965. H.R. 2965 reauthorized funding for the Small Businesses Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. The Innovation Research Program makes grants to thousands of small businesses. Its purposed is to help small innovative businesses gain access to federal research and development funds, and to allows federal agencies to benefit from the ideas generated by small private companies. The Technology Transfer Program includes non-profit research institutes for the same purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
(H.R. 2454) On passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which contained the new cap and trade program; that program mandated significantly reduced emission levels, and permitted higher emitting companies to purchase pollution credits from lower emitters. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2454, an energy bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill included, among other things, new renewable requirements for utilities, incentives for the development of carbon capture technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, grants for green jobs, and a ?cap-and-trade? plan designed to reduce ??greenhouse gas emissions: Under cap-and-trade, an enforceable and declining limit, or cap, is established on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that a company is allowed to emit, until the overall reduction goal is met. Companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would allow are permitted to buy, or trade, pollution ?credits? from entities that emit much lower pollution levels. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Automobile Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
(H.R. 2454) On the Forbes of Virginia amendment to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009; the amendment called for a public-private commission to develop a national energy plan and set seven energy independence goals. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Forbes (R-VA) to H.R. 2454, a major energy bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The amendment was intended to substitute for all the provisions of H.R. 2454. The purpose of the amendment, according to Rep. Forbes, was to ?bring together a commission . . . from government, from the private sector, from academics, and have them create in the next year a plan of energy for this country that would get us 50 percent independent from foreign oil in 10 years and 100 percent in 20 years or tell us why we can't get there.? The amendment also set seven goals for energy independence, including doubling vehicle fuel efficiency, cutting home and business energy usage in half, having solar power work as cheaply as coal, making biofuels work as cheaply as gasoline, safely and cheaply storing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, safely storing nuclear waste and producing electricity from nuclear fusion reactions. It created grants and prizes as incentives to meet certain of the goals. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Automobile Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
(H. R. 2996) On final passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The spending in the bill totaled $32.3 billion. This amount included what Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, called ?historic increases for the environment, natural resources, and Native American programs, especially Indian health . . . (and) significant allocations to protect our public lands, invest in science, and support important cultural agencies.? The spending in the bill represented an increase of 17% over fiscal year 2009, with the largest increase devoted to grants to improve drinking water treatment facilities and sewer systems. The bill also contained $6.8 billion for Native-American programs, $3.66 billion for fire control activities, and $420 million for climate change adaptation and scientific study In addition, there was also a total of $320 million in reductions in, or terminations of, various programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $150,000 that had been earmarked for the Historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building rehabilitation project in Alabama. This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated $150,000 in funds ?earmarked? for the Historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building rehabilitation project in Fort Payne, Alabama. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $1 million that had been earmarked for a project of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation in San Francisco, California. This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated one million dollars from the National Park Service's National Recreational and Preservation fund in the bill that had been ?earmarked? for a project of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation in San Francisco, California. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $150,000 in funds that had been earmarked for the Tarrytown, New York Music Hall restoration project. This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated $150,000 in funds from the bill that had been ?earmarked? for the Tarrytown Music Hall restoration project in Tarrytown, New York. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. This was one of those efforts. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $150,000 in funds that had been earmarked for the Village Park Historic Project of the Traditional Arts in Canton, New York. This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated $150,000 in funds in the bill that had been ?earmarked? for the Village Park Historic Project of the Traditional Arts in Canton, New York. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. This was one of those efforts. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated one million dollars from the bill that had been earmarked for a lodge at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA). The amendment would have eliminated one million dollars, which had been earmarked to fund the installation of a municipal water line for the Restore Good Fellow Lodge at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Porter, Indiana. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove ?earmarks? from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. This was one of those efforts. An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project that is inserted into a spending bill, typically at the request of an individual Member. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Stearns of Florida amendment, which would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 38% H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on the Stearns (R-FL) Amendment to the bill, which would have reduced 2010 funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 38%. This reduction would have maintained funding for EPA at the 2009 level. The Republicans and Democrats were engaged in a series of disagreements over the increased level of spending in H.R. 2996, especially as it related to the environmental area. The Republicans criticized the spending increases in the fiscal year 2010 funding bill as excessive, and the Democrats argued that they were primarily restoring cuts that had been made by the previous Bush Administration. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Jordan of Ohio amendment, which would have reduced the overall spending in the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies back to the fiscal year 2008 level. This was a vote on the Jordan (R-OH) amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Jordan Amendment would have reduced the overall spending in the bill by $5.75 billion, which would have put the amount at the equivalent fiscal year 2008 level. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
(H. R. 2996) On the Heller of Nevada amendment, which would have prohibited funds from being used to build a major wildfire control center in a residential neighborhood in Carson City, Nevada H.R. 2996 provided funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on an amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Heller (R-NV). The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to build a Carson Interagency Fire Facility on 15 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management located in a residential neighborhood of nearly 300 homes in Carson City, Nevada. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
(H. Res. 587) A major energy bill containing the ?cap-and-trade? plan, which permits ccompanies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would ordinarily allow to continue those emissions by purchasing pollution ?credits? from entities emitting lower levels - -on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill This was a vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of a major energy bill that included, among other things, a ?cap-and-trade? plan designed to reduce ??greenhouse gas emissions: Under cap-and-trade, an enforceable and declining limit, or cap is established on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that a company is allowed to emit, until the overall reduction goal is met. Companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would allow are permitted to buy, or trade, pollution ?credits? from entities that emit much lower pollution levels. The rule restricted the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
(H. Res. 587) A major energy bill containing the ?cap-and-trade? plan, which permits ccompanies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would ordinarily allow to continue those emissions by purchasing pollution ?credits? from entities emitting lower levels - -on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill This was a vote on a procedural motion that the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate on a major energy bill. That bill, H.R. 2454, included, among other things, a ?cap-and-trade? plan designed to reduce ??greenhouse gas emissions: Under cap-and-trade, an enforceable and declining limit, or cap is established on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that a company is allowed to emit, until the overall reduction goal is met. Companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would allow are permitted to buy, or trade, pollution ?credits? from entities that emit much lower pollution levels. The rule for H.R. 2454 restricted the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
(S.Con. Res. 31) Agreeing to the resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses of Congress for the July 4 Recess. This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses of Congress for the traditional July 4 Recess. The House requires a formal resolution for it to adjourn for a recess. Approval of resolutions allowing for recesses is routinely given. The leadership of the Democratic majority proposed this resolution. The House Republican Conference, which is the policy-making body of the Republican House Members, had been taking what it described as a symbolic position to protest the manner in which the Democrats were conducting business in the House, and had opposed resolution recesses. Forcing a vote on this otherwise routine resolution was part of that protest. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
(H.Res. 578) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate on the bill included limitations on the number of amendments that were in order to be offered to it. This was a vote on the rule. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
(H.Res. 578) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies - - on whether the House should move immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate on the bill included limitations on the number of amendments that were in order to be offered to it. This was a vote on a procedural motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
(H.R. 2647) A resolution requiring that an unlimited number of amendments could be offered on all spending bills - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that the resolution was not in order The Republican minority had been objecting to what it said was an ongoing practice by the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered to legislation, especially to spending bills. In support of their objections, the Republicans had offered a resolution that would have allowed an unlimited number of amendments to be offered to all spending bills. The resolution also contained language saying that the actions of the Democratic majority in limiting the number of amendments ?disenfranchised every single Member of this House, limiting their ability to effectively represent their constituents. These actions by the Democrats in charge . . . have violated the integrity of our proceedings . . . .? The Republicans argued that, under House rules, the resolution should be voted on immediately. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
(H.R. 2647) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department of Defense - - on sending the bill back to committee with instructions to add language that would have increased funding for military equipment by $5 billion and reduced funding for environmental clean up by an equal amount This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Forbes (R-VA) to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 2647, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The motion would have required that the committee add language to the bill increasing funding for military equipment by $5 billion, and reducing, by and equal amount, the funding for the cleanup of militarily-related environmental problems. A large portion of the increased funding would have been for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, Blackhawk helicopters, and unmanned drones for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another significant portion of the funds would have been added to the existing missile defense program. ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 457 |
(H.R. 2647) On the Holt of New Jersey amendment, which required the videotaping of the interrogations of all detainees being held by the Department of Defense or taking place in a Department facility, including the Guantanamo Naval Base This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Holt (D-NJ). The amendment required the videotaping, or other electronic recording, of all detainees being held by the Department of Defense or taking place in a Department facility, including the Guantanamo Naval Base. It also required the Defense Secretary to develop uniform guidelines for such videotaping. Excluded was any ?tactical questioning? by troops who are in contact with enemy fighters. The amendment also required that the recordings be properly classified and maintained securely. It was offered to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
(H.R. 2647) On the Akin of Missouri amendment, which would have required the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress a report on any non-disclosure agreements signed by Defense Department employees regarding their official duties This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Akin (R-MO) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The amendment would have required the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress a report on any non-disclosure agreements signed by Defense Department employees regarding their official duties. The report would have described topics covered by the agreements, the number of employees required to sign such agreements, the duration of the agreements, the types of persons covered, and the reasons for requiring such agreements. Matters relating to security clearances would have been excluded. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
(H.R. 2647) On the Franks of Arizona amendment, which would have increased funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $1.2 billion, with offsetting reductions coming from environmental defense cleanup programs This was a vote on an amendment, offered by Rep. Franks (R-AZ) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The amendment would have increased funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $1.2 billion, with offsetting reductions coming from environmental defense cleanup programs. WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
(H.R. 2647) On the McGovern of Massachusetts amendment requiring public disclosure of the names of students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation - - there were claims that such disclosure would make these students and instructors targets of terrorist attacks This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McGovern (D-MA), to a bill providing funding for the Defense Department 2010 fiscal year. The amendment required the public disclosure of the names of students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. located at Fort Benning, Georgia. WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
(H.R. 2647) On the McGovern of Massachusetts amendment, which would have called for a report from the Defense Secretary on an exit strategy for US troops in Afghanistan This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McGovern (D-MA) to the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department. The amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, by December 31, 2009, describing an exit strategy for military forces in Afghanistan. Rep. McGovern began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that its language ?does not demand a timeline for withdrawal or a halt to the deployment of the 21,000 additional troops called for by the President. It simply asks the administration to present its plan for (the) beginning, middle, and end of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.? WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
(H.Res. 572) ) Legislation providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule?, which set the terms for debating H.R. 2647, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
(H.Res. 572) Legislation providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the ?rule? or resolution setting the terms for debating the H.R. 2647, the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department. The rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
(H.R.2892) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add $50 million for the Internet-based system that determines whether a newly hired employee is an illegal immigrant This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 2892 with instructions to add $50 million for the Internet-based system that determines whether a newly hired employee is an illegal immigrant. H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The amendment also reduced funding for the department?s Office of Undersecretary for Management by$50 million. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
(H.R.2892) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have prohibited any funds in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being awarded to the organization that electronically tracks and manages criminal information and statistics This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R.2892, which provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill going to the organization that electronically tracks and manages criminal information and statistics. Rep. Flake had consistently opposed the insertion of ?earmarks?, such as this one, in funding bills. Earmarks are legislative mandates to a federal department or agency to make a grant or award to a specific city, company, institution or other entity. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
(H.R.2892) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have prohibited any funds in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being awarded to a particular company in Arizona for solar battery systems. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R.2892, which would have prohibited any funds in the bill to ?be available for award to Global Solar, Arizona, for the portable solar charging rechargeable battery systems?. H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The amendment would also have removed $800,000 from the bill, which had been ?earmarked? for that purpose. ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
(H.R.2892) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have removed $10 million in funding for the National Institute for Homeland Security H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. It included $42.6 billion for the department, which represented an increase of $2.6 billion over the corresponding figures for fiscal year 2009. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have removed $10 million in funding in the bill for the National Institute for Homeland Security in Somerset, Kentucky. Rep. Flake, who had consistently opposed ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated grants or projects in funding bills, characterized the provision awarding money to the Institute as ?one of the largest earmarks we have in the Homeland Security (bill) . . . .? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
(H.R.2892) On agreeing to the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have returned $600,000 designated for Emeryville, California to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The Flake Amendment would have returned $600,000 designated in the bill for Emeryville, California back to the general FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation account. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
(H.R.2892) On the Neugebauer of Texas amendment, which would have made a $2.76 billion reduction in the overall spending in the bill that funded the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The bill included $42.6 billion for the department, which represented an increase of $2.6 billion over the corresponding figures for fiscal year 2009. The Neugebauer Amendment would have reduced the overall spending in H.R. 2892 by $2.76 billion through reductions in the amounts for a number of the programs funded by the bill. The $2.76 billion reduction was arrived at by adding all sums that Department of Homeland Security programs received in the previously-enacted economic stimulus measure. That previous measure had been enacted in response to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
(H.R.2892) On the King of Iowa amendment explicitly prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from hiring illegal immigrants This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. King (R-IA) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The King Amendment contained language that would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from hiring any illegal immigrants. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
(H.R.2892) On the Poe of Texas amendment, which would have increased funding for the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund by $32 million This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Poe (R-TX) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The Poe Amendment would have increased funding for the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund by $32 million and reduced the amount allocated for FEMA Management and Administration by an equal amount. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
(H.R.2892) On the Duncan of Tennessee amendment, which would have reduced by $41 million the amount provided in fiscal year 2010 for federal air marshals This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Duncan (R-TN) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The Duncan Amendment would have reduced the amount in the bill for federal air marshals by $41 million, back to its fiscal year 2009 level of $819 million. Duncan cited a statement by a former senior member of the House Appropriations Committee that ?we had done all we needed to do on airplane security when we secured the cockpit doors.? He also cited a Wall Street Journal editorial that read:?(A)ny bill with the word ?security? should get double the public scrutiny . . . lest all kinds of bad legislation become law under the phony guise of fighting terrorism.'' MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
(H.R.2892) On the King of Iowa amendment that was intended to have Congress express its view that the Department of Homeland Security should remove lookout sites on the U.S.-Mexican border that were being used by drug smugglers This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. King (R-IA) to H.R. 2892, which provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The intent of the King Amendment was to have the Department of Homeland Security remove lookout sites on the U.S.-Mexican border that were being used by drug smugglers. House rules would not permit language to be included in a funding bill such as H.R. 2892, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to take a specific action such as removing the lookout sites. Rep. King therefore offered an amendment with allowable but inconsequential language, with the stated purpose of sending a message about the view of Congress regarding the lookout sites. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
(H.R.2892) On agreeing to the King of New York amendment to add $50 million to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. King (R-NY) to H.R. 2892, which provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The amendment added $50 million to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $40 million of which would go to the Securing the Cities initiative and $10 million of which would go to the procurement of radiation portal monitors. The additions proposed in the amendment would be offset by a combined reduction of $50 million in the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
(H.R.2892) On agreeing to the Lewis of California amendment, which increased the amount provided for the Customs and Border Protection agency and funded 200 additional Border Patrol agents H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. This was a vote on an amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Lewis(R-CA). The amendment increased the amount in H.R. 2892 for the Customs and Border Protection agency by$34 million, and funded 200 additional Border Patrol agents. It compensated for this spending increase by reducing the amount provided for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management of the department by $6 million, for the Under Secretary for Management of the department by $14 million, for the Chief Financial Officer of the department by $3 million, and for the Chief Information Officer of the department by $18 million MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
(H.Res.573) On a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority as a delaying tactic; the vote was a protest against the limitations the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments Members could offer to spending bills This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of spending bills the House was debating. Among those spending bills were one for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and another for the Department of Homeland Security. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
(H.Res.573) Legislation providing funds for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2892. The rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill, and permitted roll call votes on it to be completed within two minutes, rather than the customary 5-minute minimum. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
(H.Res.573) On a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority as a delaying tactic; the vote was a protest against the limitations the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments Members could offer to spending bills This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of spending bills the House was debating. Among those spending bills were one for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and another for the Department of Homeland Security. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
(H.Res. 573) Legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year - - on a procedural motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R.2892 provided $42.6 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. This was on a motion to vote immediately on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. The rule for H.R. 2892 limited the number of amendments that could be offered and permitted roll call votes to be completed within two minutes, rather than the customary 5-minute minimum. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
(H.R.2918) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for congressional operations. This was a vote on passage of the bill providing $3.7 billion for the operations of Congress. Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), who was leading the support for the bill, said that Members of Congress ?have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that works for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.? She summarized the purpose of a large part of the funding in the bill as making sure the staff ?can do the work they need to do in order for us to be able to serve our constituents in the most effective way possible.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2918 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch FY 2010 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
(H.Res.559) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the operations of Congress - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on approving the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2918. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for all congressional operations. The rule for the bill permitted only one amendment to be offered during its consideration. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to this type of limitation on amendments to funding bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
(H. Res. 559) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the operations of Congress - - on a procedural vote to determine whether the House should move to another vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2918. That bill provided $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for all congressional operations. The rule permitted only one amendment to be offered during consideration of H.R. 2918. The Republicans expressed their strong opposition to this limitation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
(H.R.2847) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and certain other federal agencies. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2847, providing $64.4 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and certain other federal agencies. The bill increased comparable funding from the 2009 fiscal year by approximately $6.75 billion. Among other things, H.R. 2847 provided $30.6 billion for science, technology, and innovation, $18.2 billion for NASA, $4.6 billion for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, $7.9 billion for the FBI, $6.2 billion for the Bureau of Prisons, $3.4 billion for state and local law enforcement activities $2 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration and $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and $440 million for the Legal Services Administration. Included in these larger amounts was an increase of 30% for border security and an increase of $11 million for the Office of Violence Against Women, MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority; the vote was formally on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the addition of certain neutral language added by the Appropriations Committee to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice This was a vote generated by one of a series of delaying procedural moves of the Republican minority. These procedural moves were designed to protest the manner in which the Democratic majority was conducting the legislative process. The Republicans were particularly objecting to the limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure initiated by the Republican minority to protest the limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills This was one of a series of votes resulting from delaying procedural moves of the Republican minority. The Republicans forced these votes as a means of protesting the manner in which the Democratic majority was conducting the legislative process. The Republicans were particularly objecting to the limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
(H.R. 2847) On a motion made as a method to gain control of the House floor and argue against the administration decision to advise interrogated enemy combatants of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney This vote was formally on a motion to send the pending bill, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Justice, back to committee with instructions to add some neutral language. The motion was actually made as a procedural technique by the Republican minority to gain control of the House floor for debate purposes. The Republicans wanted to gain control of the floor to allow them to argue against the decision of the Obama Administration to advise interrogated enemy combatants of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. The administration had announced that it was going to advise enemy combatants of these rights during interrogation in order to maintain the ability to prosecute the combatants in the future. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority. The vote was on whether the House should reconsider its decision to table (kill) a motion to reverse a ruling; the ruling had prevented consideration of an effort to add language to an appropriation bill prohibiting any funds from being used to provide ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan. This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
(H.R.2847) On the motion to table (kill) the vote on whether to reverse a ruling relating to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice; the ruling sought to be reversed was that a motion to recommit the appropriations bill and add language prohibiting any funds in H.R. 2847 from being used to provide ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan was not in order. This was a vote on a motion to ?table? (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a motion made by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to recommit H.R. 2847 to the Appropriations Committee with instructions was not in order. The instructions that Rep. Lewis had proposed adding to the bill that were ruled out of order would have prohibited the Justice Department from using any funds in the bill ?to provide (Miranda) rights . . . to detainees in the custody of the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan.'' Miranda rights are those given by arresting officers to criminal suspects before they can be questioned, including the right to have a lawyer. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Hodes of New Hampshire amendment, which added a requirement all federal departments and agencies receiving funds under the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice track and report the amount of previously appropriated funds that had not been disbursed. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority;, the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Cuellar of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which prohibited funds in the bill from being used to purchase light bulbs that do not have an "Energy Star" or "Federal Energy Management Program" designation. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which was designed to insure that $32 million of the funds in the bill for National Science Foundation education activities would be used for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities undergraduate program. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Nadler of New York amendment, which moved $5,000,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the Community Oriented Policing Services DNA program. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should to reconsider a its previous approval of the Boswell of Iowa amendment, which transferred $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the National Criminal History Improvement program. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Moore of Wisconsin amendment, which moved $4,000,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the Violence Against Women and Prevention Prosecution Programs. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its approval of the Bordallo of Guam amendment, which was designed to insure that at least $500,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice would be awarded for Western Pacific fishery projects. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves by the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous rejection of the Schock of Illinois amendment, which proposed transferring $500,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice from the Census Bureau to the International Trade Administration. This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves by the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
(H.R.2847) On the Schock of Illinois amendment, which proposed transferring $500,000 from the Bureau of the Census to the International Trade Administration in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice. This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the multi-billion dollar Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. Formally, this was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Schock (R-IL) to transfer $500,000 from the Bureau of the Census to the International Trade Administration for a study on the economic benefits of the U.S.-Columbia Free Trade Act. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Mollohan of West Virginia amendment, which moved $100 million in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
(H.R.2847) On the Burton of Indiana amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to relocate census personnel to the Office of the President. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Burton (R-IN) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to relocate the Office of the Census or employees from the Department of Commerce to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President. There had been significant concern expressed, especially by Republicans, that the Obama Administration was intending to move control of the 2010 census from the Department of Commerce to the White House. This was reportedly one of the reasons that Sen. Gregg (R-NH) had decided not to join the Obama Administration as Secretary of Commerce. Subsequent to Gregg?s decision, the administration announced that control of the census would remain within the Commerce Department. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the Institute for Seafood Studies project at Nichols State University in Louisiana. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate $325,000 provided in the bill for the Institute for Seafood Studies project at Nichols State University in Louisiana. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the JASON Science Education Project in Ashburn, Virginia. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would have eliminated $4,000,000 provided in the bill for the JASON Science Education Project in Ashburn, Virginia. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative in New Jersey. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would have eliminated one million dollars provided in the bill for the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative in New Jersey. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the Innovative Science Learning Center in Florence, South Carolina. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate $500,000 provided in the bill for the Innovative Science Learning Center of Science South in Florence, South Carolina. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the National Drug Intelligence Center. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate forty-four million dollars provided in the bill for the National Drug Intelligence Center. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
(H.R.2847) On the Campbell of California amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for the Summer Flounder and Black Sea Initiative project of the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries in New Jersey. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would prohibit the expenditure of $600,000, which was in the bill for the Summer Flounder and Black Sea Initiative project of the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries in New Jersey. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
(H.R.2847) On the Campbell of California amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for the Minority Business Development Agency at the Jamaica, New York Export Center. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would have prohibited the expenditure of $100,000, which was in the bill, for the Minority Business Development Agency at the Jamaica, New York Export Center. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
(H.R.2847) On the Campbell of California amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for a project at San Jose State University, called Training the Next Generation of Weather Forecasters. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would prohibit the expenditure of $180,000, which was in the bill for a project at San Jose State University called Training the Next Generation of Weather Forecasters. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
(H.R.2847) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for the Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawling Survey. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment sought to eliminate the funds in the bill that specifically provided $200,000 for the Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawling Survey. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
(H.R.2847) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used by the Art Center of the Grand Prairie, Stuttgart, AR, for the Grand Prairie Arts Initiative. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate the funds in the bill that specifically provided $155,000 to fund an after-school and summer arts program at the Arts Center of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Arkansas. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
(H.R.2847) On the Broun of Georgia amendment which would have prohibited funds to be used to establish or implement a National Climate Service. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) that would have prohibited any of the funds in the H.R. 2847 to be used to establish or implement a National Climate Service. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
(H.R.2847) On the Jordan of Ohio amendment, which would have made a $12,511,000,000 across-the board reduction to the amount in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jordan (R-OH) that would have made a $12,511,000,000 across-the board reduction to the total funding in H.R. 2847. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. the bill. The reduction proposed by the amendment would have put the spending levels in the bill back to the corresponding levels they were at in the previous fiscal year. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
(H.R.2847) On the Price of Georgia amendment, which would have reduced the total in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice by 1% or $644,150,000. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA) that would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 2847 by 1% or $644,150,000. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
(H.R.2847) On the Burton of Indiana amendment which prohibited any funds in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce to be used to relocate census personnel to the Office of the President. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Burton (R-IN) to H.R. 2847, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce. The amendment prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to relocate the Office of the Census or employees from the Department of Commerce to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
(H.R.2847) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment, which would have decreased by 5% all spending in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice that were not legally required to be spent This was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 2847 offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN), which would have decreased by 5% all spending in the legislation not otherwise required to be spent by some other law. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
(H.R.2847) On the Nunes of California amendment which would have prevented the Marine Fisheries Service from implementing those elements of its plan for the California Central Valley and associated water projects that reduced water flow to farms in the valley This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Nunes (D-CA) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce. The amendment would have prevented the Marine Fisheries Service from implementing those elements of its plan for the California Central Valley and associated water projects that reduced water flow to farms in the valley. That plan was part of an effort to save various species of whales and fish, including the killer whale and a three inch minnow. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
(H.R.2847) On the Price of Georgia which would have removed $100 million from the amount of fiscal year 2010 funds provided to the Department of Justice. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA) that would have removed $100 million from the funds provided in H.R. 2847 for the Department of Justice. This was the amount that President Obama had asked each cabinet officer to find in savings from his or her department. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funds to the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
(H.R.2847) On the Tiahrt of Kansas amendment that would have deleted $250 million from the fiscal year 2010 Department of Commerce spending bill and replaced it with the same amount from the previously-passed economic stimulus legislation This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS). The amendment would have deleted $250 million from H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 Departments of Commerce spending bill, and replaced it with the same amount from the previously-passed economic stimulus legislation. That deletion and replacement would have been made in the funding for the Economic Development Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce. Congress had previously passed economic stimulus legislation designed to deal with the financial crisis the country was experiencing, and the Economic Development Administration received funding from that stimulus legislation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
(H.R.2847) On the Lewis of California amendment that would have prohibited any money in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice from being used to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to implement the executive order issued by President Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where a large number of suspected terrorists were being held. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
(H.R.2847) On the Lewis of California amendment that would have prohibited any money in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to be used to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to implement the executive order that had been issued by President Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where a large number of suspected terrorists were being held. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
(H.R.2847) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment which would have ended funding for the Legal Services Corporation This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have ended federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation by eliminating the $440 million allocated to it in H.R. 2847. The Corporation provides free non-criminal legal assistance to individuals who cannot afford an attorney. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Justice and Commerce and for federal science and other programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
(H.R.2847) On the Roe of Tennessee amendment, which would have reduced funding for the Bureau of Prisons This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Roe (R-TN), which would have reduced the funds appropriated in H.R. 2847 to the federal Bureau of Prisons by $97.4 million. This was the figure by which the amount provided in H.R. 2847 for the Bureau of Prisons exceeded the amount President Obama had requested. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Justice and Commerce and for federal science and other programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
(H.Res.552 ) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on the resolution allowing further debate of the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2847. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for science and other federal programs. The rule permitted only a limited number of amendments to be offered.. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
(H. Res. 552) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on whether to move immediately to a vote on the resolution allowing further debate of the bill This was on a motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2847. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for science and other federal programs. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for further debate of the bill permitted only a limited number of amendments to be offered. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
(H. Res. 544) On a procedural vote resulting from the efforts of the Republican minority to express its opposition to the manner in which the Democratic majority was conducting legislative business This was on a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority on what is normally a routine procedure whereby the House of Representatives is formally reconstituted. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
(H. R. 2346) On passage of the measure providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds, including those to support additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan H.R. 2346, provided supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds. Those supplemental funds, among other things, supported additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also included five billion dollars for the International Monetary, funding for the ?Cash For Clunkers program? that allowed Americans to trade in older gas guzzling care new high efficiency ones, and money to help state and local governments deal with the swine flu pandemic and to fund global efforts to track and contain its spread. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2346. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
(H. Res. 544) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 2847 provided funds for the 2010 fiscal year for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and for federal science and other programs. The bill, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for expanded scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it, and prevented most points of order from being raised against its provisions. This was a vote on the rule. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
(H. Res. 544) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on whether to move immediately to a vote on the resolution allowing the House to debate the bill H.R. 2847 provided funds for the 2010 fiscal year for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and for federal science and other programs. The bill, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for expanded scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it, and prevented most points of order from being raised against its provisions. This was a vote on a procedural motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
(H.Res.545) Legislation providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 spending, including funds for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program and for supporting additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds for several federal programs and departments. Among the uses for the supplemental funds were the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that allowed Americans to trade in older gas guzzling cars for new high efficiency ones; additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan; aid to state and local governments to help deal with the swine flu pandemic; and assistance to the global efforts to track and contain the spread of the swine flu pandemic. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
(H.R.1256) On passage of legislation that, for the first time, put tobacco products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) This was a vote to have the House agree to the changes the Senate made to the version of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, that had previously passed by the House. H.R. 1256, for the first time, put tobacco products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It required the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco products to children, to prevent manufacturers from using terms such as ?light? in their description of cigarettes, and to force tobacco companies to remove ?toxic? chemicals from cigarettes. It also imposed a new user fee on the cigarette industry to pay for the additional work that would be required of the FDA by these new responsibilities. Provisions were also included in the bill to provide equitable treatment to convenience stores, tobacco growers and small manufacturers. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Tobacco Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
(H.R.1886) On passage of the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act (PEACE) Act authorizing additional development and security assistance for Pakistan. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act (PEACE Act). The Act tripled U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development in Pakistan. It also required increased auditing, monitoring reporting and evaluation of the use of the authorized funds, and mandated that Pakistan cooperate in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and demonstrate its commitment to combating terrorism to continue to receive military assistance. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
(H.R.1886) Legislation authorizing development and security assistance for Pakistan - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions that would have removed a number of the new reporting and monitoring requirements it imposed on the Pakistani Government as a condition for receipt of additional U.S. financial assistance This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 1886, with instructions that would have removed a number of the new reporting on and monitoring requirements the bill imposed on the Pakistani Government. H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act, among other things tripled the level of U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development in Pakistan. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
(H.R.1886) On Agreeing to the Ros-Lehtinen of Florida amendment, which would have reduced the level of U.S. monitoring of Pakistani intelligence operations and of Pakistani spending of U.S. funding that were imposed as conditions for the receipt of additional financial assistance This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) that would have reduced the level of monitoring of intelligence operations and spending of U.S. funding that were imposed on Pakistan as a condition for its receipt of additional development and security assistance. H.R. 1886 tripled U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development in Pakistan, and required increased auditing, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the use of the authorized funds. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
(H.R.2346) Legislation providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 spending authority for a number of federal departments and agencies - - on instructing the House Members negotiating the final version of the bill with the Senate conferees to agree both to certain lower Senate-passed spending levels, and to the Senate-passed prohibition on the release of photographs of suspected terrorists being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison This was a vote on a motion by Rep Lewis (R-CA) to have the House instruct its conferees to agree to certain spending levels in the Senate version of H.R. 2346 that were lower than the numbers in the House version. The motion also instructed the House conferees to agree to language in the Senate version of H.R. 2346 prohibiting the release of photographs of suspected terrorists being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. The release of these photographs had become a very controversial issue. Those supporting the release argued that it was consistent with the practices of an open society. Those opposed argued that it could threaten national security. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
(H.R.2410) On passage of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act providing funding for foreign diplomatic and political operations in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. H.R. 2410, among other things, authorized an Office of Global Women?s Issues in the State Department; funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency; the payment of all dues to the U.N.; a significant expansion of the Peace Corps; an increase in international broadcasting activities; a strengthening of the State Department arms control and nonproliferation bureaus; 1,000 new diplomatic positions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other strategic areas; 213 positions dedicated to improving training in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Urdu; and additional arms control experts and counterterrorism specialists. It also reformed the U.S. system of export controls for military technology, improved oversight of U.S. security assistance, and required a report to Congress on actions taken by the United States to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge over its enemies in the Middle East. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Peace Corps Funding WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
(H.R.2410) Legislation authorizing funds for foreign relations operations - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to have it include provisions that would have imposed sanctions on Iran. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Burton (R-IN), which he described as a ?Republican motion?, to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act with instructions to have it include the language of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions bill. The ?Iran Sanctions? bill mandated that the State Department immediately open an investigation into alleged violations of existing sanctions against Iran and companies that have illegally done business with Iran. WAR & PEACE— Relations with Iran |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
(H.R.2410) On the Royce of California Amendment which would have designated the African nation of Eritrea as a ?state sponsor of terrorism.? This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Royce (R-CA) to H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which would have required the Secretary of State to designate the African nation of Eritrea as a ?state sponsor of terrorism.? The amendment also called on the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against Eritrea. Rep. Royce, arguing on behalf of his amendment noted that ?U.N. report after U.N. report cites Eritrea for providing arms and military training to members of . . . an al Qaeda-linked group that has been designated by the United States as a ?foreign terrorist organization.?? WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
(H.R.2410) On the Brown-Waite of Florida Amendment, which would have prevented the distribution in the U.S. of a film, titled ?A Fateful Harvest? that examined the narcotics industry in Afghanistan H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, included a provision that waived the historic ban against disseminating U.S. public diplomacy (propaganda) materials within the United States in order to make the film ?A Fateful Harvest'' available for U.S. viewing. The film dealt with the poppy growing, opium production, trafficking, law enforcement efforts, the harmful health effects of drugs, and the difficulties facing both the Afghan Government and U.S. governments in dealing with these matters. It was produced by the Voice of America, a government-funded service that broadcasts programs designed to develop a positive view of the HYPERLINK "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" \o "United States" United States in other countries. These programs are broadcast in many languages and are not intended for an American audience. WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
(H.R. 2410) On the Ros-Lehtinen of Florida Amendment, which would have withheld $4.5 million in funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The amendment would have withheld almost $4.5 million authorized by the bill for the U.S. contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency for non-nuclear proliferation efforts. She said she selected this figure because it equals the ?amount that the Agency spent on nuclear assistance to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan in the year 2007, the most recent fiscal year for which figures are available.? HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
(H.R. 2410) On the Berman of California Amendment, which made a wide range of changes to the bill providing funding for foreign relations operations in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Berman (D-CA), the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to H.R. 2410, which provided funding for foreign relations operations in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years. The amendment, among other things, authorized an Office of Global Women?s Issues in the State Department; the payment of all dues to the U.N.; a significant expansion of the Peace Corps, an increase in international broadcasting activities, a strengthening of the State Department arms control and nonproliferation bureaus; 1,000 new and strengthened diplomatic positions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other strategic areas; 213 positions dedicated to improving training in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Urdu; and additional arms control experts and counterterrorism specialists. It also reformed the U.S. system of export controls for military technology, and required a report to Congress on actions taken by the United States to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge over its enemies in the Middle East. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Peace Corps Funding WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
(H.Res. 522) Legislation that provided assistance to Pakistan, and authorized worldwide foreign assistance for the 2010 and part of the 2011 fiscal years - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate of the legislation H.R. 1886 provided assistance to Pakistan, and H.R. 2410 authorized worldwide foreign assistance for the 2010 and part of the 2011 fiscal years. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the two bills. , Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, argued: ?(I)t is critical that Congress put forth the necessary funding to help rebuild our diplomatic capabilities abroad and mitigate the damage that was done under the previous administration's leadership. H.R. 2410 . . . is the first foreign relations-related authorization bill to reflect essential democratic priorities since 1993. As such, it provides a new direction forward and vital resources to boost our diplomatic capacity, improve our relations around the world, protect our national security, and make use of America's smart power, rather than rely on the military only solutions of past Congresses and the previous administration WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
(H.R. 2751) On passage of the ?Cash for Clunkers'' bill, providing cash incentives to consumers who trade in their old, energy-inefficient vehicles This was a vote on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R. 2751, which provided tax incentives or mass transit vouchers to consumers who trade in vehicles that are at least eight years old for ones getting better fuel economy, that cost less than $35,000, and that were assembled in North America. The legislation was nicknamed the ?Cash for Clunkers'' bill. The cash incentives generally ranged between $3,000 and $5,000. The bill was supported by, among others, U.S. automakers, car dealers, and the UAW. Some foreign automakers expressed opposition. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
(H.R. 626) On passage of legislation providing federal employees with 4 paid weeks of parental leave This was a vote on passing H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. The Act, among other things, provided for 4 paid weeks of parental leave for federal employees. Federal employees were permitted under existing law to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave. However, existing law did not provide that any portion of those 12 weeks would be paid. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
(H.R. 626) Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act - - on a motion to add a provision that would terminate the Act if the federal deficit at the end of any fiscal year exceeded $500 billion This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) to committee, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 with instructions to require that the Act terminate on the 30th day following any fiscal year in which the federal deficit exceeded $500 billion. The Parental Leave Act, among other things, gave federal employees 4 paid weeks of parental leave. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
(H.R. 626) On the Issa of California Amendment, which would have placed significant restrictions on the use of parental paid leave by federal employees. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Issa (R-CA) to H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. The amendment had two main purposes. It provided for 4 paid weeks of parental leave for federal employees. It also permitted federal employees to take an ?advance? against future leave for the purpose of parental leave. Federal employees were permitted under existing law to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave, if they had accrued that amount. However, existing law did not provide that any portion of those 12 weeks would be paid. Existing law also did not permit employees to ?borrow? against future leave time, if they had not yet accrued 12 weeks of unpaid leave. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
(H.R. 2200) On the Mica of Florida amendment to change the standards for determining when the Transportation Security Administration can issue an emergency regulation or a security directive H.R. 2200 authorized funding for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). There had been many complaints from Members of Congress about the substance of some of the emergency regulations the TSA had issued, and about the methods used in developing those regulations. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Mica (R-FL) that permitted the TSA to issue an emergency regulation or security directive without adhering to the usual rulemaking procedures when it determined that it was responding to ?an imminent threat of finite duration". It also required the TSA to comply with the usual rulemaking procedures after a security directive or emergency order it issued had been in place for more than 180 days. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
(H. Res 474) Legislation funding the Transportation Security Administration Description - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for consideration by the House of H.R.2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This legislation, among other things, tripled existing funding for surface transportation systems to $7.6 billion during the 2010 fiscal year, increased the funding an additional 6% for fiscal year 2011, and directed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to adopt the policy proposed by the 9/11 Commission. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
(H.R. 31) On passage of a bill extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Most local records and tribal documents of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina were destroyed either during the Civil War or as a result of Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act. H.R. 31 was designed to extend federal recognition to the tribe, although it did not meet all the usual standards for gaining recognition. This vote was on passage of the legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
(H.R. 31) Legislation extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina - - a motion to add language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes This vote was on a motion to add language to legislation extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. That language would have required the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. Most local records and tribal documents of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina were destroyed either during the Civil War or as a result of Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act. The legislation was designed to extend federal recognition to the tribe, although it did not meet all the usual standards for gaining recognition. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
(H.Res. 490)Legislation extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 31 and H.R. 1385 were bills that extended federal recognition to a number of Indian tribes that were based partly or fully in Virginia. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for consideration of those bills. The rule allowed only certain designated amendments to be offered to one of the bills, and did not permit any amendments to be offered to the other. Rep. Cardoza (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, referred to the bills which the rule covered and said that their passage ?will right several wrongs in our country's history and bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition of (these) tribes.? He noted that the tribes had been trying to obtain federal recognition since the 19th century, but various bills to recognize them ?failed due to opposition from the Department of the Interior.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
(H.R. 915) On passage of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act This was a vote on passage of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. The reauthorization bill provided $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding around the country. It also required additional air safety requirements, including semi-annual FAA inspections of foreign repair stations, and drug and alcohol testing on those working on U.S. aircraft. In addition, the increased the maximum passenger facility fee that airports can charge. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
(H.R. 915) A bill providing $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language prohibiting any funds going to the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport A number of Republicans had been focusing on ?earmarks? in spending bills that had been inserted by Rep Murtha (D-PA), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. An earmark is a legislatively-mandated federal grant. During Murtha?s years in Congress, he had directed many earmarks toward funding projects at the local airport in his district, which was subsequently named for him. This was an effort to insert language in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act to prevent any further federal funds from being spent at projects at that airport. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
(H.Res. 464) A bill providing $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. The Act provided $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding. It also required additional air safety requirements, including semi-annual FAA inspections of foreign repair stations, and drug and alcohol testing on those working on U.S. aircraft. In addition, it increased the maximum passenger facility fee that airports can charge. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
(H.Res. 464) A bill providing $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding - - on moving to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was on a motion to have the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. That Act provided $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding. It also required additional air safety requirements, including semi-annual FAA inspections of foreign repair stations, and drug and alcohol testing on those working on U.S. aircraft. In addition, it increased the maximum passenger facility fee that airports can charge. The rule for the bill permitted only certain amendments to be offered to it. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
A resolution to appoint a committee to investigate whether Speaker Pelosi accurately charged the CIA with misleading her about its use of interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists - - on whether to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that prevented a vote on the resolution. A controversy had developed about whether the CIA had accurately advised House Speaker Pelosi about its use of inappropriate interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, during her previous service as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The CIA said that it had kept her fully advised about the use of these techniques. Pelosi had publicly claimed that she was never told that these techniques were being used, challenged the truthfulness of what she and other congressional leaders were told by CIA officials about the techniques, and accused the CIA of lying. The CIA claimed that it does not lie to Congress. In response to these events, the House Republican minority had proposed a formal investigation into the matter. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.
|
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
( H.R. 2352) The Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009, which expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to ensure that small business owners are made aware of the alleged adverse effects of future energy taxes H.R. 2353, the 2009 Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, amended the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners, including underserved populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans. There was significant support for the addition of language to the bill that would ensure that small business owners are made aware of the alleged adverse effects of future energy taxes. However, the terms under which the Act was being considered did not permit an amendment to be offered to add this language. It did permit a motion to send the measure back to the originating committee with instructions to add the relevant language and report the bill back to the House. That is what this motion would accomplish. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
(H.R. 627) To permit the carrying of guns in national parks - - on concurring in an amendment that the Senate had added to an unrelated bill This was a vote on permitting people to carry guns in national parks. The provision allowing the carrying of guns had been added by the Senate to an unrelated piece of legislation known as the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights, which the House had previously passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate then sent the credit card bill back with the gun provision attached. The House had adopted a procedure which required a separate vote on the gun provision apart from its vote on passage of the credit card bill. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
(H.Res.457) The Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 expanding access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 amended the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners, including underserved populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the bill. The rule limited the amendments that could be offered by individual Members. The debate focused both on the rule and on the underlying bill itself. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
(H.Res. 457) Legislation expanding access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners - - on a moving to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill. H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 amended the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners, including underserved populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans. This was a procedural motion to have the House mover to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2352. The rule limited the amendments that could be offered by individual Members. The debate focused both on the rule and on the underlying bill itself. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
(H, Res. 456) Legislation designed to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of consumer credit - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? establishing terms for consideration of the bill designed to establish fair and transparent consumer credit practices. The House had previously passed a version of the bill and sent it to the Senate, which had amended it. Under House procedures, the House first had to agree to this rule before it could consider whether to accept the Senate version. Under the terms of the proposed rule, no Member could offer an amendment to the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
(H.R. 2346) On passage of the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan This was a vote on passage of the 2009 bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and led the support for the legislation, limited his argument to the following sentence: ?we have a new President who has inherited a war he is trying to end. This bill tries to help him do that. We have no real alternative but to support it.? Rep. Lewis (R-CA), who was leading the Republicans in the debate on this measure, urged an ?aye? vote because ?the (bill) provides the necessary resources for our soldiers and civilians to wage a successful battle on multiple fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.? WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
(H.R. 2346) The 2009 fiscal year supplemental spending bill which contained funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to restore $3 billion for Pakistan counterinsurgency efforts and $200 million for combating drug imports from Mexico H.R. 2346, the 2009 fiscal year supplemental spending bill, contained funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to committee with instructions to add language providing for changes in parts of the bill. The additional language was designed to restore $3 billion in overall defense spending, to move the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Program funding from the State Department budget to the Defense Department budget, and to shift $200 million to law enforcement operations in the efforts against Mexican drug importers. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs WAR & PEACE— US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
(H.Res. 434) The bill to provide additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on agreeing to the rule setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rule allowed the Appropriations Committee to offer a major amendment to the bill, but did not allow for Members to offer individual amendments. Although there was general bipartisan support for the additional funding, the Republican minority opposed the rule setting the terms for considering the bill, because it did not allow for any individual amendments to be offered. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
(H.Res. 434) The bill to provide additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill to provide additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rule allowed the Appropriations Committee, which had developed the bill, to offer a major amendment to it, but did not allow Members to offer individual amendments. Although there was general bipartisan support for the additional funding, the Republican minority opposed the rule setting the terms for considering the bill, because it did not allow for any individual amendments to be offered. It also opposed the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
(H.R. 2187) On the Kline of Minnesota amendment to change the title of the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act to ??A bill to saddle future generations with billions in debt? H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. This was a vote to change the title of the Act to read: ??A bill to saddle future generations with billions in debt, and for other purposes.?? EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
(H.R. 2187) On passage of the bill authorizing $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, which authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the legislation, had argued in favor of it by saying that ?an excellent education . . . (can) only be achieved . . . in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century. Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are unable to meet this basic standard. According to the American Federation of Teachers, our schools fall short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's schools a D on the national infrastructure report card.? EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
(H.R. 2187) A bill authorizing $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities - - on the motion to allow the bill to take effect only so long as the federal deficit is below $500 billion This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Thompson (R-PA) to add language to a bill, authorizing new school construction, modernization and ?greening? grants, which said the bill could only take effect if the federal deficit were below $500 billion. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
( H.R. 2187) On the Giffords of Arizona amendment to encourage schools receiving funds for projects under the Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act to educate their students about the projects H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. This was a vote on an amendment to H.R.2187 that would encourage schools receiving funds for projects under this Act to educate their students about the projects that the schools have undertaken. This included both how the projects function as well as the environmental, energy, and sustainability benefits. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
( H.R. 2187) On the Titus of Nevada amendment to establish a council to advise the Secretary of Education on green high-performing schools H.R.2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the Act, described the need for the legislation by saying that ?an excellent education . . . (can) only be achieved . . . in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century.? EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
(H. Res. 427) A bill authorizing $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate on the bill. H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of H.R. 2187. Those terms included specifying which amendments could be offered during considering of the measure. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: H RES 378 Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
(H.R. 1729) On passage of legislation was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay This was a vote on House passage of H.R, 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. That legislation was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay. The House Financial Services Committee, which developed the bill, said the legislation would ?curb lending that had been a major factor in the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation in 25 years . . . It would establish a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold.? The bill was being opposed by the Mortgage Bankers Association. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On the McHenry of North Carolina amendment to exempt ?high-cost mortgage loans? from the coverage of the bill designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McHenry (R-NC) to delete the provisions in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that applied its regulations to ?high-cost mortgage loans.? High cost mortgages are loans with high fees, which are taken out by buyers with less than perfect credit. Those loans are also covered by separate legislation passed in 2002, and by regulations issued by the Federal Reserve. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
(H.R. 1728) On the Price of Georgia amendment that would have required the Federal Reserve Board to certify that legislation, designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans borrowers will be able to repay, will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages. This was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, offered by Rep. Price (R-GA). The amenedment would have required the Federal Reserve Board to certify that the legislation will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
(H.R. 1728)On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have deleted the provisions in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that make those who either purchase mortgages after they are originated, or package them into securities, liable for deceptive practices engaged in during the original marketing of the mortgage loan H.R. This was a vote on an amendment, offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), to H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, The amendment would have deleted the provisions in the legislation that make those who either purchase mortgages after they are originated, or package them into securities, liable for deceptive practices engaged in during the original marketing of the mortgage loan. H.R. 1728 was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay. The report of the House Financial Services Committee, in which the bill was developed, said the legislation would ?curb lending that had been a major factor in the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation in 25 years . . . It would establish a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
(H.R. 1728) Frank of Massachusetts amendment eliminating language in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act prohibiting housing counseling funds being awarded to any organization in which an employee had been indicted for Federal election or voter fraud This was a vote on an amendment to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA). The amendment eliminated language in the bill that prohibited housing counseling funds from being awarded to any organization in which an employee had been indicted for Federal election or voter fraud. Frank said the targeted language had erroneously been inserted because there was no recognition that it penalized an organization that had been ?indicted?, but not convicted. He noted that the change would ?vindicate an important principle of American law that indictment should not be a cause of serious penalty, that people should continue to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
(H.Res. 406) A bill to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay - - on a resolution setting the terms for continued consideration of the bill H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay. The House Financial Services Committee, which developed the bill, said the legislation would ?curb lending that had been a major factor in the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation in 25 years . . . (and) establish a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold.? This was a vote on a resolution or ?rule? allowing the House to resume its consideration of the bill, and to permit fourteen amendments to be offered to it. Five of those fourteen would be offered by members of the Republican minority. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
(H.R. 627) A bill to give credit card holders additional rights and to limit the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and add language requiring the Federal Reserve Board to study whether the legislation would have an adverse impact on small business H.R. 627 gave credit card holders additional rights and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to committee, and add language requiring the Federal Reserve Board to study whether the legislation would have an adverse impact on small business. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
H.R. 627, On the Maloney of New York amendment, which required credit cardholders to agree explicitly before they receive over-the-limit protection and be charged a fee for that protection. H.R. 627 modified the Truth in Lending Act provisions relating to credit cards. H.R. 627, among other things, gave credit card holders additional rights and protections, and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
(H.R. 627), On the Slaughter of New York amendment, which limited the amount of credit that card issuers could extend to college students. H.R. 627 modified the Truth in Lending Act provisions relating to credit cards. This was a vote on an amendment offered to the bill to limit the amount of credit that card issuers could give to college students. It would accomplish this by, among other things, reducing the limit on the credit card of a college student to $500 or 20% of the annual income of the student, whichever is greater. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
(H.R. 627) Legislation giving credit card holders additional rights and protections, and limiting the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating a bill H.R. 627 amended the portion of the Truth in Lending Act relating to credit cards. Among other things, the bill gave credit card holders additional rights and protections and enumerated and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates. This vote was a on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of H.R. 627. The arguments for and against the rule focused on the underlying bill as well as on the specifics of the rule. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
(H.R. 1913) On passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which provided federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and added disability, age, sexual orientation, and military or law enforcement service as protected categories. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 1913, which gave the U.S. Attorney General authority to provide assistance to state and local governments to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the victim?s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or military or law enforcement service. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
(H.R.1913) Legislation that provided federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and to add disability, age, and sexual orientation to the categories of protected classes - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee and add members of the armed forces and law enforcement as protected categories H.R. 1913gave the U.S. Attorney General authority to provide assistance to state and local governments to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to committee with instructions to insert additional language that would, among other things, add current or former members of the armed forces or law enforcement officers to the class of individuals protected by it. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
(H.R. 1913) The bill providing federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and to add disability, age, sexual orientation, and service in the military or law enforcement to the categories of protected classes -- on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 1913 gave the U.S. Attorney General authority to provide assistance to state and local governments to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the victim?s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or previous military or law enforcement service. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 1913.The arguments made for and against the rule focused largely on the substance of the bill itself. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
(H.R.1913) A bill providing federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and adding disability, age, sexual orientation, and service in the armed forces or law enforcement to the categories of protected classes - - on moving immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 1913 provided federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and added disability, age, sexual orientation, and service in the armed forces or law enforcement, as protected categories. This was on ?ordering the previous question?, a procedural motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
(S.Con. Res. 13) On agreeing to budget for fiscal year 2010 This was a vote on a resolution establishing the budget for fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2010 budget provided for, among other things, health care reform, a middle class tax cut, increased funding for a number of social programs, additional spending in energy conservation, and a slower rate of increase in defense spending. It also included ?reconciliation? language, which allowed the Senate to consider health care reform without giving the minority the ability to filibuster it. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
(H. Res. 37) The fiscal year 2010 budget - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate The 2010 fiscal year budget, among other things, provided for a middle class tax cut and increased funding for a number of social programs in the areas of health care, education and clean energy. It also included ?reconciliation? language, which allowed the Senate to consider health care reform without giving the minority the ability to filibuster it. This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the fiscal year 2010 budget. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
(H.Res.371) The fiscal year 2010 budget - - on waiving all points of order against the resolution setting the terms for debate The 2010 fiscal year budget, among other things, provided for a middle class tax cut and increased funding for a number of social programs in the areas of health care, education and clean energy. It also included ?reconciliation? language, which allowed the Senate to consider health care reform without giving the minority the ability to filibuster it. This was a vote on a motion to waive all points of order on the resolution or ?rule? that set the terms for debate of the 2010 fiscal year budget. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
(H.Res.365) The fiscal year 2010 budget - - on a procedural vote to allow the House to consider the resolution setting the terms for debate The House was in the process of considering the fiscal year 2010 budget that had been agreed to by representatives from the House and Senate. Before the budget, or most other measures, can be considered, the House must first pass a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the measure. The House Rules Committee presented the rule for the fiscal year 2010 budget on the same day the vote on it was scheduled. House procedures require that a two third approval be given before a rule can be considered on the same day it is presented. This was a vote on a motion to waive that two thirds requirement, and requiring only a majority approval for this accelerated process. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
(H.R. 1145) On the Shadegg of Arizona amendment, which would have required the identification of state and local water research and development programs that duplicate the effort of federal programs. H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009, was designed to promote the coordination of various federal research, development, and management efforts in dealing with national water needs. The Act had bipartisan support. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Shadegg (R-AZ) that would have required those federal departments or agencies implementing the Act to identify federal water-related research and development technological innovative activities that are duplicated by more than one Federal agency or program, or by a federal agency and a state or local government or Indian tribe. It would also have required any federal department or agency finding duplication to make recommendations to the President as to how to avoid such duplication. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
(H.R. 1145) On the Roskam of Illinois amendment, which would have directed the General Accountability Office to identify whether there is duplication in federal water research and development programs. H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009, was designed to promote the coordination of various federal research, development, and management efforts in dealing with national water needs. The Act had bipartisan support. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Roskam (R-IL) that would have directed the General Accountability Office (?GAO?) to identify whether there is duplication in federal water research and development programs. It also would have suspended the implementation of any programs created by H.R. 1145, which GAO identified as duplicating other federal water efforts, pending the final results of that study. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
(S.Con. Res. 13) Health care reform - - on instructing House Members, who will be negotiating a final version of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution with the Senate, not to include any language that would prevent a Senate filibuster of separate health care legislation If a budget resolution includes a procedure called ?reconciliation?, the Senate is able to consider certain legislation to which the procedure applies without the ability of any senator to filibuster that legislation. The budget resolution that had passed the House applied the reconciliation procedure to health care and certain other issues. The budget resolution that had passed the Senate did not have any reconciliation language. This was a vote on a motion to instruct the House Members, who would be negotiating the final budget resolution with the Senate, not to include the reconciliation procedure in that resolution. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
(H.R. 388) On passage of legislation to assist in the conservation of 15 endangered cat and canid species including the lion, cheetah, jaguar, and wolf This was a vote on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R. 388, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009. A canid includes any member of the dog family. The purpose of the bill was to assist in the conservation of 15 endangered cat and canid species including the lion, cheetah, and jaguar and African wild dog. The bill established a new Great Cat and Rare Canid Conservation Fund to finance Federal matching grants that support conservation projects to conserve what were classified as highly endangered wildlife species and their shrinking habitats. The legislation was patterned after other wildlife conservation funds authorized by Congress to help conserve and recover endangered populations of rhinoceros, tigers, African and Asian elephants, great apes, and marine turtles. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
(H.R. 388) On passage of legislation to assist in the conservation of the world's species of cranes, including the whooping crane
This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 388, the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. The measure was intended to assist in the conservation of the world's 15 crane species, including the whooping crane and the sand hill crane found in North America. The bill would establish a new fund out of which Federal matching grants would be made to conserve the endangered birds and their habitats around the world. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
(H.Con. Res. 85) On passage of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. This was a vote on House adoption of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010, with guidelines over five years, proposed by the Democratic majority. It provided for significant increased spending in social programs, including expansion of health care coverage; slowing in defense spending increases; the expiration of some existing tax reductions, and the adoption of other tax changes that it claimed provided relief for up to 95% of all Americans; and the adoption of a ?cap and trade? program intended to reduce energy use by having companies that emit excessive amounts of pollutants buy energy credits from companies that pollute less. The Congressional Budget Office projected that, if implemented, the resolution proposed by the Democratic majority would reduce the deficit to $586 billion in 2013. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Republican minority This was a vote on the budget proposed by the Republican minority, which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. According to the Republicans, their proposed budget had significantly lower spending levels, taxes, and deficits than the Democratic budget. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus This was a vote on the budget proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (?CBC?), which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The CBC budget was based on the Democratic budget, but it also would have immediately repealed the Bush-era tax cuts, and applied the revenue that would have been generated to education, health care, job training, international trade, justice, transportation, and veterans programs. The CBC budget would have reduced funding for the proposed ballistic missile defense system and reallocated that funding to increased Defense Department health care research programs and wounded veterans? assistance. In addition, it would have reallocated funds to allow the Defense Department to finish implementing recommendations of the Government Accountability Office relating to waste, fraud, and abuse within the department. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Republican Study Committee This was a vote on the budget developed by the Republican Study Committee (?RSC?), which was offered as a substitute for the 2010 fiscal year Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The Republican Study Committee is composed of conservative Republican House Members, and describes its mission as offering solutions based on principles of limited government, lower taxes, individual freedom, and a robust national defense. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus This was a vote on the Congressional Progressive Caucus (?CPC?) budget, which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The CPC budget would have cut defense spending by $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2010, implemented nearly 800 outstanding Government Accountability Office recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse at the Defense Department, saved $90 billion by executing a complete withdrawal from Iraq, rolled back what it characterized as ?the Bush tax breaks for the top 1 percent?, and invested $991 billion in non-defense discretionary spending including $300 billion for health care, anti-poverty programs, infrastructure, and non-military foreign assistance . An additional $30 billion was included to fight global warming and promote energy independence, $70 billion for education programs and $45 billion to make veterans health care an entitlement. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
(H.R. 1256) On passage of legislation, which authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the marketing and production of cigarettes and other tobacco products This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which authorized the Food and Drug Administration (the ?FDA?) to regulate the marketing and production of tobacco products, to the committee that developed it. The legislation was a response to a thirteen year old Supreme Court ruling that Congress had to give specific authority to the FDA for it to be able to apply this regulation. The bill specifically directed the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco to children, to prevent cigarette manufacturers from calling cigarettes `light' or `less dangerous', and to require the removal of certain damaging materials from cigarettes. The Act also established a new fee paid for by the cigarette industry to fund the additional work that would be required of the FDA. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Tobacco Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
(H.R.1256) Legislation which authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, authorized the Food and Drug Administration (the ?FDA?) to regulate the marketing and production of tobacco products. The legislation was a response to a thirteen year old Supreme Court ruling that Congress had to give specific authority to the FDA for it to be able to apply this regulation. The Act specifically directed the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco to children, to prevent cigarette manufacturers from calling cigarettes `light' or `less dangerous', and to required the removal of certain damaging materials from cigarettes. The Act also established a new fee paid for by the cigarette industry to fund the additional work that would be required of the FDA. This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-MI) to send the bill back to committee. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Tobacco Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
(H.R.1256) On the Buyer of Indiana amendment, which would have required the FDA to consider the cost or feasibility of imposing restrictions or prohibitions on tobacco use, and would also have permitted the marketing of ?lower-risk? tobacco products H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, authorized the Food and Drug Administration (the ?FDA?) to regulate the marketing and production of tobacco products. The Act was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that Congress had to give specific authority to the FDA for it to be able to regulate tobacco. H.R. 1256 directed the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco to children, to prevent cigarette manufacturers from calling cigarettes ?light? or ?less dangerous?, and to require the removal of certain damaging materials from cigarettes. It also established a new fee paid for by the cigarette industry to fund the additional work that would be required of the FDA. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Tobacco Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
(H.Con. Res.316) The budget for fiscal year 2010 - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the budget for fiscal year 2010. That budget also included spending guidelines for the next five fiscal years. Under House procedures, before a measure can be considered, the House must first approve a rule setting the terms for debate of the measure. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Tobacco Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
(H.R.1664) On passage of the Pay for Performance Act that limited the types executive compensation that could be paid by companies that received federal government financial assistance. This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act. That legislation generally froze bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that accepted federal funds from the Troubled Asset Relief (?TARP?) Program until those funds were repaid. The Program extended funds to troubled banks. H.R. 1664 did allow for new compensation and bonus arrangements to be made, as long as they were based on performance standards to be crafted by the Treasury Secretary. The bill was one of several measures put forward in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the TARP and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
(H.R.1664) On the Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania amendment expanding the types of executive compensation that were prohibited from being paid by companies receiving federal government financial assistance H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act, generally froze many types of bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that accepted funds from the Troubled Asset Relief (?TARP?) Program until those funds were repaid. The TARP program had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009, The bill was one of several measures put forward in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the TARP and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
(H.R.1664) On the Bean of Illinois amendment that would exempt certain companies that had accepted federal financial assistance from the restrictions that had been imposed on executive compensation paid by such companies H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act, generally froze bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that accepted funds from the Troubled Asset Relief (?TARP?) Program until those funds were repaid. The TARP program had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009, This vote was on an amendment to H.R. 1664, offered by Rep. Bean (D-IL), that allowed for new compensation and bonus arrangements to be made by such banks, as long as they were based on performance standards to be crafted by the Treasury Secretary. It exempted companies that adhere to a repayment program from the coverage of the Act. The Pay for Performance Act was one of several measures put forward in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the TARP and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
(H.R.1575) Legislation giving the Attorney General the authority to investigate and challenge certain bonuses paid to entities receiving federal ?bail out? funds - - on suspending the usual House rules and passing the legislation H.R. 1575 was designed to give the Attorney General the authority to investigate and challenge certain bonuses paid to entities receiving federal ?bail out? funds. The legislation was developed in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (?TARP?). Reports of these bonuses created protests in Congress. The measure allowed the Attorney General to challenge certain bonuses, paid up to seven months earlier, by entities receiving $5 billion or more in direct federal capital investments. It also authorized the Attorney General to subpoena information relevant to those bonuses. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the regular House rules and pass H.R.1575. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
(H. Res. 306) The bill prohibiting excessive compensation by financial institutions assisted by the federal government - - on the resolution providing the terms for debating that bill A bill had been developed to limit bonuses by companies receiving federal financial assistance in response to reports about multimillion bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (?TARP?), and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. Under usual House procedures, before a measure can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or ?rule?setting the terms for debating that measure. This was a vote on the rule setting the terms of debate for the bill designed to limit certain excessive bonuses. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
(H.Res. 305) The federal budget for fiscal year 2010-- on the resolution setting the terms for debate Under congressional procedures, both Houses must agree on an identical budget outlining revenues and spending for a fiscal year, before any spending bill for that fiscal year can be approved. The House was scheduled to debate the budget for fiscal year 2010 and the general budgetary levels through fiscal year 2014. Under usual House procedures, before a measure can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating that measure. This was a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the fiscal year 2010 budget. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
(H.Res. 279) On passage of the resolution approving the funding levels for all committees of the House of Representatives for the 111th Congress. Under usual procedures, the House of Representatives passes a resolution early in the first year of each two year Congress authorizing funds for the operation of each of its committees. The House Committee on Administration develops the resolution by holding hearings at which each committee chairman testifies on the needs of the committees for that two year Congress. H.Res. 279, which provided funds for committee operations during the 111th Congress, generally gave each committee a maximum of a 4.78% increase for 2009. This percentage corresponded to the 2009 cost-of-living increase for Federal employees in Washington, D.C. For 2010, the committees were to receive an across-the-board increase of an additional 3.9% which, the House Administration Committee estimated, would be needed to maintain staff pay at the level of inflation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
(H.R.1388) On passage of legislation providing funds for local community service and volunteer efforts This vote was on passage of H.R. 1388, legislation, which provided funds for local community service and volunteer organizations. The general intent and substance of the bill had bipartisan support. However, Republicans had expressed concern that the bill did not include language that prohibited funds authorized by it from going to organizations affiliated with groups that promote abortions, as well as political parties and lobbyists, or organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
(H.Res. 296) Legislation providing funds for local community service and volunteer efforts - - on approving the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This was a vote on a motion to approve the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation providing federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. A somewhat different version of this legislation had previously passed the House with bipartisan support. The House was now considering the version of the bill that the Senate had passed. As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On the Goodlatte of Virginia amendment, which provided additional funding for fighting wildfires This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) to the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement (?FLAME?) Act. The FLAME Act established a dedicated fund for catastrophic, emergency wild land fire suppression activities, separate from other appropriated fire-fighting funding. This new fund was designed to be available when other appropriated funds run out, saving federal agencies from having to dip into non fire-related programs. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
(H.Res. 281) Legislation providing additional funding for fighting wild fires - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement (?FLAME?) Act. The FLAME Act established a dedicated fund for emergency wild land fire suppression activities, separate from other appropriated fire-fighting funding. As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure. The rule for the FLAME Act limited the number of amendments that could be offered. Many Republicans opposed that limitation, even though they favored the substance of the legislation. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
(H.R.146) On passage of legislation that would add millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control This was a vote on passage of H.R. 146, the Public Land Management Act of 2009. This Act combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating millions of acres of new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 280 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control. This legislation combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives. As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
(H.Res. 280) Legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control - - on a motion that the House vote immediately on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was a vote on a motion to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control. This legislation combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating millions of acres of new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives. As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
(H.Con.Res. 76) A sense of the Congress resolution that salaries of officials of companies receiving federal financial assistance should be limited, and that AIG or its officials should repay the bonuses received by those officials; AIG had recently received federal ?bail out? assistance. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass a ?sense of the Congress? resolution. That resolution stated that salaries should be limited and bonuses returned by companies receiving federal assistance. It was drafted in response to the reports that large bonuses were given to AIG executives after the federal government contributed almost $200 billion to rescue the company. The new head of AIG had told Congress that ?AIG's hands are tied. Outside counsel has advised that these [retention payments] are legal, binding obligations of AIG.? FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
(H.R 1586) On suspending the usual House rules and passing a bill imposing a 90% tax on bonuses given to executives of AIG after the government had ?bailed out? the company. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R. 1586, which imposed a 90% tax on bonuses given to AIG executives that were paid after the government had ?bailed out? the company with hundreds of billions of federal dollars. The news about these bonuses had generated a bipartisan protest. Rep. Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, led the effort in support of the legislation. He explained that ?we're not trying to punish anybody . . . Rewards are subjective, but you don't do it with taxpayers' money. . . .? Rangel said the AIG officials do not ?deserve to have these bonuses at taxpayer expense.? He noted that the way the bill was being handled, with the House rules being suspended, was ?an extraordinary procedure?, but added ?this is an extraordinary situation . . . (that) calls for an extraordinary response to it.? FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
(H.Res. 168) Legislation imposing a 90% tax on bonuses given to executives of AIG, which had recently received federal ?bail out? assistance - - on a motion to have an immediate vote on the legislation This was a on a motion to bring to an immediate vote H.R. 1586, a bill imposing a 90% tax on certain bonuses given to AIG executives. H. R. 1586 was developed as a result of the bipartisan protests resulting from reports that bonuses were given to AIG executives after a multi-billion dollar rescue of the company by the federal government. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
(H.R. 1388) On passage of the ?GIVE Act?, which provided funds to AmeriCorps, faith-based organizations and many other local community service and volunteer efforts. The vote was on House passage of H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?). This legislation, among other things, reauthorized funds for existing national service programs including AmeriCorps, several faith-based organizations, and many other local community service and volunteer efforts. It also established four new service corps including the Clean Energy Corps to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, the Education Corps to help increase student engagement in volunteerism, the Healthy Futures Corps to improve health care access, and the Veterans Service Corps to enhance services for veterans. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
(H.R. 1388) On a motion to add language to a bill funding local community service and volunteer efforts that would prohibit the volunteers from discussing or promoting abortions, and from engaging in lobbying, union organizing, political activity, voter registration or religious teaching The vote was on a motion to recommit (send back) the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?) to committee with instructions to add language that would prohibit the volunteers from discussing or promoting abortions, and from engaging in lobbying, union organizing, political activity, voter registration or religious teaching. The primary purpose of the GIVE Act was to provide funds to volunteer organizations. A ?motion to recommit with instructions? is a procedural technique used to modify or delay legislation. If the motion is successful, it returns the measure to the committee that developed the bill with orders to make specified changes before the measure can be returned to the full House for reconsideration. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1388 Description: This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Titus (D-NV) to the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (?GIVE Act?), which provided federal funds for local community service organizations and volunteer efforts. The amendment added funds to create a new National Service Reserve Corps, to be composed of experienced volunteers who are former members AmeriCorps and volunteer programs. They will be assigned to situations in which their experience will enable them to respond quickly. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
(H.R. 1388) On the Markey of Colorado amendment to increase funding for AmeriCorps and other national service organizations This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Markey (D-CO) to the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (?GIVE Act?), which provided federal funds for local community service organizations and volunteer efforts. The amendment increased funding for AmeriCorps and other national service organizations. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
(H.R. 1388) On the Roe of Tennessee amendment that would have kept 2010 fiscal year funding for local community service and volunteer efforts at its fiscal year 2008 level This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Roe (R-TN) to the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?), which provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. The amendment would have capped the authorization level in the GIVE ACT for fiscal year 2010 at the fiscal year 2008 level. Rep. Matsui (D-CA), who opposed the amendment, described the GIVE Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society.? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
(H.R. 1388) On the Loebsack of Iowa amendment providing additional funds to strengthen local faith-based and other volunteer organizations This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Loebsack (D-IA) to H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?). H.R. 1388 provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. The amendment authorized additional grants, above those that were already in the bill, for nonprofit groups, including faith-based organizations, and to States, to increase the supply of volunteers, and to strengthen volunteer infrastructure organizations throughout the country. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
(H. Res. 250) A bill providing funds for AmeriCorps, faith-based organizations, and many other local community service and volunteer efforts - - on approving the resolution setting the terms for its debate H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?) provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. Those terms included a designation of which amendments could be offered during considering of the measure. The rule permitted only eleven specified amendments to be offered during deliberation of the legislation. Rep. Matsui (D-CA), described the GIVE Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society... The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness . . . .? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
(H. Res. 250) A bill providing funds for AmeriCorps, faith-based organizations, and many other local community service and volunteer efforts - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the measure H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE? Act) provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. This was a vote on ?ordering the previous question?, or bringing to an immediate vote, the ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the legislation. Rep. Matsui (D-CA), described the GIVE Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society... The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness . . . .? MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Encouraging Voluntary National Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
(H.R.1262) On passage of The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, authorizing billions of dollars for water projects. This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 1262, a bill authorizing billions of dollars to help states and local governments with wastewater treatment facilities, alternative water resource projects, and sediment remediation efforts. Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who led the support for the bill, said: ?(O)ur responsibility is to care for the water we have. . . We have to manage it well, make sure that we use it properly (and) that we return (it) to the streams and lakes and estuaries of the Nation in clean condition. This legislation will move us in that direction.? Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said she supported the measure because ?approximately 40 percent of the rivers, lakes and coastal waters do not meet state water quality standards, and the problem is getting worse.? ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
(H.R. 1262) On the Mack of Florida amendment to eliminate the requirement that local governments using federal water project funds pay workers ?prevailing wages and benefits?. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Mack (R-FL) that would have eliminated language in a water project funding bill, which required workers on the projects to be paid ?prevailing wages and benefits?. The legislation to which the amendment was offered authorized billions of dollars for water treatment facilities, storm and sewer systems and sediment remediation projects. The language that the amendment sought to delete, originally mandated in a seventy year old measure known as the Davis-Bacon Act, has been included in many bills providing federal funds for construction projects. The requirement regarding wages and benefits has long been a source of disagreement between Democrats who have generally supported it and Republicans who have generally opposed it. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
(S.32 ) On passage of legislation designating the Sequoia and Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Areas, the Snake River Conservation Area, and more than 100 other new wilderness areas, scenic rivers, heritage and preservation initiatives, and water projects This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass S.22, which combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives. Among those were the Sequoia and Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Areas, the Mt. Hood (OR) Wilderness Area, the Snake River Conservation Area, and several additions to the National Trail System. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
(H.J. Res. 38) On a motion to send back to committee a bill providing funds to keep the federal government operating in fiscal year 2009 This was a vote on whether to recommit (send back) to the Appropriations Committee a bill to provide funds that would keep the federal government operating for a short period in fiscal year 2009, pending Congressional approval of a longer-term funding bill. The Congress and the Bush Administration had never reached an agreement about funding levels for the 2009 fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008. The government was funded after September 30, 2008 with a series of resolutions that kept departments operating at their levels for the previous fiscal year. The House was scheduled to complete its work on a major funding bill that covered most of fiscal year 2009. The resolution that the motion would recommit was designed to allow the government to keep operating until the longer-term 2009 appropriations bill was passed and became law. A motion to recommit is a procedural tactic to delay or modify legislation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
(H.R.1106) On passage of a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 1106, legislation that, among other things, gave bankruptcy judges the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified, protected companies servicing loans that engage in loan modifications against civil claims, and made permanent what had been a temporary increase in the level of FDIC deposit insurance. The primary disagreement regarding this measure focused on its provision allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on principal residences. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
(H.R. 1106) On a motion to send back to committee a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) to committee H.R. 1106, a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. The motion included instructions that language be added to the bill that would prohibit assistance to any borrower who lied about his/her income on the mortgage application, and to any lender who failed to follow proper underwriting standards. It also included instructions that language be added to prohibit funds from being used as incentives to lenders to rework certain loans unless the President submits a plan that provides ?equitable treatment of all mortgage holders.? AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
(H.R. 1106) On the Price of Georgia amendment, which would have allowed lenders on mortgages that were reduced in a bankruptcy to be repaid the reduced amount when the house was sold. This was a vote on an amendment that would have allowed a lender on a mortgage that had been reduced in a bankruptcy proceeding to recover the amount of the reduction if the home were later sold at a profit. The amendment was offered by Rep Price (R-GA) to a bill which was designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. That bill included language which, for the first time, would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal amount of a home mortgage of a debtor. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
(H.R. 1106) On the Lofgren of California amendment to expand the ability of bankruptcy judges to adjust home mortgages, which was offered to a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) containing a number of changes that the Democratic majority and The Obama Administration wanted made in a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. The amendment allowed a bankruptcy court to consider lowering the mortgage interest in accordance with a plan the Administration had just developed. The plan required, among other things, that the debtors demonstrate they had made good faith attempts to modify the mortgages through voluntary agreements with lenders. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
(H. Res. 205) Legislation intended to reduce the number of mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit - - on passage of the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill H.R. 1106 was a bill intended to slow foreclosures and revive the housing market during the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009. It gave bankruptcy judges the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified in bankruptcy, protected loan servicing companies that engage in loan modifications from civil claims, and made a permanent increase in the level of FDIC deposit insurance. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? on H.R. 1106, which set the terms for House consideration of the bill, including the amendments that could be offered to it. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
(H.Res. 190) Legislation designed to slow home foreclosures and revive the housing market during the severe economic downturn - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of legislation aimed at slowing foreclosures and reviving the housing market during the ongoing severe economic downturn. That legislation provided bankruptcy judges with the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified, extended protections against civil claims to companies servicing loans that engage in loan modifications, and made permanent what had been a temporary increase in FDIC deposit insurance. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
(H.Res. 190) Legislation designed to slow home foreclosures and revive the housing market during the severe economic downturn - - on the motion to bring the resolution setting the terms for considering the legislation to an immediate vote This was on a motion to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could consider the legislation aimed at slowing home foreclosures and reviving the housing market. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
H.R.1105 A measure that combined nine fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills covering most of the federal departments and agencies. This was a vote on The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The Act was a compilation of nine appropriation bills covering the operations of most federal departments and agencies, other than those related to defense, for the 2009 fiscal year ending on September 30, 2009. Total funding in the Act was $410 billion. The previous Congress and President Bush were unable to reach an agreement on these nine appropriations bills by October 1, 2008, the beginning of fiscal year 2009, and Congress had previously extended funding so these department and agencies could continue to operate at their fiscal year 2008 levels. In addition to providing funding for fiscal year 2009, The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 made a few policy changes including no longer allowing Mexican trucks to operate widely in the U.S., making it easier for American citizens to visit immediate relatives in Cuba, stopping a plan to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and extending the use of E-Verify, an Internet system that uses Social Security registration and other data bases, which employers can access to verify the employment eligibility of workers. It also included congressionally-directed spending, or earmarks, totaling about $7.7 billion. With respect to those earmarks, Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI), who was managing the measure on the House floor, said that the earmark process followed in this Omnibus Act was far more transparent than ? in the so-called ?good old days.??? In addition, the Act also rejected a cost of living increase for House Members. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
(H.Res. 184) Legislation containing nine separate funding measures amounting to over $400 billion for the 2009 fiscal year - - on a procedural vote to determine whether the House should take up the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill H.R. 1105 contained nine separate funding measures amounting to over $400 billion for the 2009 fiscal year. This was a procedural vote on whether the House should consider the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H. R. 1105. When the rule for H.R. 1105 was brought up, Rep. Flake (R-AZ) raised a point of order against it. He said that the rule violated the Congressional Budget Act because it allowed for the House to consider H.R. 1105, even though the bill contained ?unfunded mandates? - - a term that refers to language in any piece of federal legislation that requires states to spend money on a program without providing the money to pay for the program. The decision on the point of order was to be determined by the outcome of the vote on H. Res. 184 - - an affirmative vote would override the point of order and allow the House to debate the funding bill; a negative vote would mean the point of order prevailed, and the ?unfunded mandates? would have to be removed from the funding bill before the House could debate it. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
(H.R. 80) On passage of legislation that extended the coverage, to include primates, of existing federal controls on the interstate transportation and sale of certain animals This was a vote on passage of H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act, which prohibited the importation, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase of primates in interstate or foreign commerce. It amended legislation knows as the Lacey Act Amendments of 198l, which had previously applied those restrictions to a number of other wild animals. This bill expanded the coverage of the Lacey Act to certain nonhuman primates, including monkeys and chimpanzees. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
(H.R. 44) On passage of a bill increasing compensation for natives of Guam for their suffering during World War II. This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and approve H.R. 44, a bill titled the Guam Recognition Act. The bill implemented the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Commission, which had recommended additional compensation for natives of Guam who suffered injury during the Japanese occupation of the island during World War II. The Commission was established in 2003 to examine whether there was parity in the World War II damage claims that had been paid to the natives of Guam compared with United States citizens or nationals. The Commission was also charged, if it found there has not been parity, to advise the Congress on changes required to compensate the natives of Guam equally. After its work was completed, the Commission recommended increases in the levels of compensation that had been paid to the natives who were injured and to the descendants of those who had been killed. The additional compensation was to cost $131 million. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
H.R.911 To establish the first set of national standards for private and public teenage residential treatment programs. The vote was on a motion by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to suspend the regular House rules and pass ?The Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act.? This legislation established the first set of national standards for private and public residential programs that are intended to help teenagers with behavioral, emotional, mental health, or substance abuse problems. There are 20,000 to 30,000 teenagers enrolled in these programs, which include therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavior modification facilities. There had been no national federal standards for these facilities. Many states also had not set their own minimum treatment standards or methods of accountability for them, or had regulated only the publicly funded programs. The Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations for Congress, had issued a report in 2007 that found there had been thousands of allegations of child abuse and neglect at these teenage residential programs since 1990. It also found evidence of ineffective management," and "reckless or negligent operating practices" at many of the facilities. This legislation was intended to prevent these problems from occurring in the future. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
(H.R. 1) On passage of the legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008-2009. This vote was on House passage of the legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn. The stimulus measure was developed to deal with what was generally considered to be the deepest economic crisis faced by the United States since the Great Depression. Republicans and Democrats generally agreed that an economic stimulus package was needed. However, most Democrats wanted the bill to be devoted primarily to spending increases, while Republicans wanted the emphasis to be on tax reductions. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
(H.R.1) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on a motion to send the legislation back to committee and add language allowing for a deduction of both the sales tax on new auto purchases and interest on new auto loans The legislation funding the economic stimulus package was developed in response to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the legislation to committee, with instructions to add language allowing for a tax deduction for the sales tax on new auto purchases and for the interest paid on new auto loans. Rep. Miller (R-MI), who made the motion, represents a district in Michigan in which a number of auto assembly plants and suppliers are located. It had been hit very hard by the economic crisis. It was estimated that the language that Miller proposed by added would have cost approximately thirteen billion dollars in federal revenue. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Automobile Industry FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
(H.R. 1) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on a procedural vote to determine whether the House should take up the bill The economic stimulus package was developed to deal with the deepest economic crisis faced by the United States since the Great Depression. This was a vote forced by a procedural effort by the Republican minority to try to prevent the House from taking up the legislation funding the package. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
(H. Res, 168) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on the rule providing for the terms under which the House could debate the bill The legislation had been developed in response to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate the legislation funding the economic stimulus package. Under House procedures, before a bill or can be debated, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? setting the terms for its consideration. The Republicans opposed the motion on several grounds. Their opposition was based partly on the substantive argument that the economic stimulus legislation was flawed and they had a better alternative. It was also based on the fact that the House was not being given adequate time to review the measure. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
(H.Res. 168) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on the procedural question of whether the House should immediately vote on the resolution permitting it to debate the bill The legislation funding the economic stimulus package had been developed in response to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing.This was a vote on ?ordering the previous question?, or bringing to an immediate vote H.Res. 168, the resolution? setting the terms under which the House could debate the legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
H. Res. 157. Procedural vote allowing the House to suspend the rules and pass resolutions honoring designated achievements. Feb. 11, 2009. This was a vote to allow the House to suspend its regular rules of operation and pass four resolutions honoring individuals and organizations. There were four non-controversial resolutions that the House leadership wanted to pass on Thursday, February 12, 2009. They included honoring the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, recognizing the Pittsburgh Steelers for winning the Super Bowl, supporting American Heart Month, and naming a post office in Georgia after a local official. Before the House could take up any of these, it had to pass a separate resolution permitting the rules to be suspended on a Thursday. This was a vote to do so. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
The Digital Television Delay Act (S.352)/On Passage. This was a vote on whether to delay the date to convert to all-digital television from February 17, 2009 to June 15, 2009. The change to all-digital television broadcasting had been recommended by the September 11 Commission. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
The Digital Television Delay Act (S.352)/Motion to recommit with instructions to retain the effective date for conversion to all-digital television for the portion of the broadcasting spectrum in or near that to be used by first responders. This vote was on a motion to maintain the scheduled date for converting to all-digital television for the portion of the broadcast spectrum designated for use by public safety officials. The conversion had been recommended by the September 11 Commission. The motion was made during House consideration of legislation, which would delay the date of conversion of all digital television broadcasting from February 17, 2009 to June 15, 2009. Rep. Barton (R-TX) had moved to send the bill back to the Commerce Committee with instructions to maintain the original conversion date for the first responder spectrum. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
The Children?s Health Insurance Program-SCHIP (H.R.2)/Vote to agree to accept amendments the Senate made in the bill which expands insurance coverage to children and pregnant women. The State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was originated in the 1990?s to help states provide health insurance to lower income families with children. The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest, but too high to qualify for Medicaid. Studies had shown that the number of uninsured children had risen even after SCHIP was enacted. This legislation was designed to expand the program to cover far more children and pregnant women, including legal immigrants without a waiting period. Previous legislative attempts to expand funding for the program had passed, but they did not become law because former President Bush vetoed them. President Obama had promised to sign the legislation if it passed. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
H.R. 1 Economic stimulus /On passage of the legislation providing more than $800 billion in stimulus spending and tax reductions. This vote was on House passage of the legislation containing the spending increases and tax cuts in the economic stimulus package. The measure was developed to deal with what was generally agreed by all parties to be the deepest economic crisis faced by the United States since the Great Depression. The supporters of the measure said it would create and save jobs, help state and local governments, which were experiencing widespread budget shortfalls, prevent deep cuts in health, education, and law enforcement services, reduce taxes for working families and small businesses, and invest in the long-term health of the economy. Among the areas to which spending would be targeted by the measure were infrastructure, housing, alternative energy sources and retrofitting, environmental cleanup, transportation, health services and facilities, nutrition, education and training, law enforcement, and science. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
H.R.1. Economic stimulus /Motion to recommit with instructions to add $60 billion in additional highway and water project funding, and to eliminate $164 billion in other funding. This vote was on a motion by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to send the legislation containing the economic stimulus package back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to add $36 billion in highway spending and $24 billion in Army Corps of Engineer water construction projects, and to eliminate $164 billion of other new spending that was in the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
Amendment to H.R.1, the stimulus package proposed by the Democrats. The amendment would substitute the proposed Republican stimulus package that added income tax rate deductions for the bottom two income tax brackets, alternative minimum tax relief, small business deductions and expensing, expanded carry back of net operating losses, improved home buyer credit, unemployment benefit tax exemption, health insurance premium deduction, repeal of the 3 percent withholding requirement for government contractors, extension of unemployment benefits, and a Sense of Congress statement against tax increases to offset outlays. This vote was on an amendment that would have effectively substituted the alternative developed by the House Republicans to H.R.1, the $787 billion dollar economic stimulus package of spending increases and tax cuts that the Democrats had developed. The amendment was co-sponsored by Rep. Camp (R-MI), the most senior Republican member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking member of the House Republican leadership. The Republicans argued that their amendment ?preserves some of the best features of the (Democratic stimulus package), but eliminates hundreds of billions in wasteful spending.? The Republicans also claimed that it met the three basic elements that President Obama had said were needed in a stimulus package: FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Agreeing to the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have cut all additional funding for Amtrak from the economic stimulus package. This was a vote on an amendment to the economic stimulus legislation, which would have deleted Amtrak funding. The economic stimulus legislation included an additional $800 million in funding for Amtrak, beyond the annual funding it had been receiving. Rep. Flake (R-AZ), who has been an active opponent of federal spending that he considers wasteful, offered an amendment to the economic stimulus legislation to remove the additional $800 million. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
Neugebauer of Texas amendment that would cut all new spending from the economic stimulus package/On agreeing to the amendment. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) to the legislation containing the economic stimulus package. The amendment was designed to eliminate $355 billion of discretionary programs in the legislation. Rep. Neugebauer acknowledged that he and all other Members of Congress were concerned about the number of Americans who had lost their jobs. He then said that, despite this concern, he objected to the new appropriations in the stimulus package because they would require the government to spend money it does not have. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 328 To postpone the DTV transition date. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
Outlining rules for debate (H. Res. 92) on the economic stimulus legislation /On adoption of the resolution. Jan. 28, 2009. This vote was on the ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the legislation containing the large economic stimulus package. The rule, among other things, allowed only eleven designated amendments to be offered. Various House members had asked The Rules Committee, which drafted the rule, for a total of 206 amendments to be made in order. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
Economic Stimulus/Procedural vote to allow the House to consider the resolution which outlines the rules for debate of the bill containing the economic stimulus package. Jan. 28, 2009. This was a vote on whether to take up the ?rule? setting the terms for consideration of the economic stimulus package developed by the House Democrats. Republicans opposed the stimulus package because it emphasized spending increases over tax reductions, and were using procedural tactics to delay moving the bill through the legislative process. Forcing a roll call vote on the resolution approving the taking up of the rule on the stimulus bill was one such tactic. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
Economic Stimulus/Procedural vote on whether to take up the economic stimulus legislation (H.R.1) despite the fact that its expenditures violated the Congressional ?pay-as-you-go? rule. Jan. 27, 2009. This was a vote on whether the House should begin to consider H.R.1, the legislation that contained the multi-billion dollar stimulus package of spending increases and tax cuts the Democrats had developed in response to the economic downturn. The bill did not identify sources of additional revenue to pay for those spending increases and tax cuts, as is normally required by the House ?pay-as-you-go? rule. Under that rule, if a bill that increases spending or reduces taxes does not identify the required source of compensating revenue, the measure can only be considered if it contains language stating that the bill deals with an emergency. Even then, a majority of the House must still vote to consider the bill. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Passage: S 181 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
S 181. (Wage discrimination) Motion to send the bill back to the Education and Labor Committee for reworking/On the motion This vote was on whether to send a bill that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to extend the time limit in which workers can file employment discrimination lawsuits back to the Education and Labor Committee for a complete rewrite. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
H Res 88. (Economic stimulus) Providing for consideration of a bill that would provide $815.8 billion for tax cuts and other economic stimulus spending (HR 1)/On passing the bill This vote was on passing a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would provide $815.8 billion in tax cuts and additional spending to stimulate the economy. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
H Res 88. (Economic stimulus) Providing for consideration of a bill that would provide $815.8 billion for tax cuts and other economic stimulus spending (HR 1)/On ordering the previous question This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would provide $815.8 billion in tax cuts and additional spending to stimulate the economy. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
H Res 87. (Wage discrimination) Providing for consideration of a bill modifying time limits for filing wage discrimination lawsuits (S 181)/On passing the bill This was a vote on passing a bill outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to extend the time limit in which workers can file employment discrimination lawsuits. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
H Res 87. (Wage discrimination) Providing for consideration of a bill modifying time limits for filing wage discrimination lawsuits (S 181)/On ordering the previous question This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to extend the time limit in which workers can file employment discrimination lawsuits. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
H J Res 3. (Resolution nullifying part of the financial bailout money) On passing a resolution that would prevent the release of $350 billion in financial bailout money/On the resolution This vote was on passing a resolution that would prevent the Treasury Department from releasing $350 billion provided under the 2008 financial industry bailout law. This $350 billion is the second installment of funding in a total $700 billion package intended to help rescue the faltering U.S. economy by injecting capital into banks and investment markets and purchasing toxic mortgage assets. HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) On passing a bill to set certain conditions on the use of $350 billion allocated to buy certain mortgage assets/On passing the bill This vote was on passing a bill that would set additional conditions on the use of the second $350 billion installment of funding provided by a 2008 law. The law, which doled out a total of $700 billion in two increments, was originally intended to help stabilize business and credit markets by purchasing troubled mortgage assets, thereby taking them off the accounting books of banks and businesses. But Bush administration Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. soon shifted the focus to making massive direct investments in banks without the sort of restrictions lawmakers said were needed to ensure taxpayers? money was wisely spent; this bill was in part an attempt to impose some of those restrictions on the funds that had already been spent, as well as any future bailout funding. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Motion to rewrite a mortgage bailout bill to add language requiring a plan to be developed to repay all assistance provided under the bill/On the motion This vote was on a motion to send a bill back to the Financial Services Committee to add language that would require the Treasury Department to develop a plan to repay the money provided under a 2008 law intended to purchase certain devalued or problematic mortgage assets. The motion was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $350 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies. HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Motion to kill an attempt to appeal the chairman?s ruling on whether a bill should be rewritten to add language transferring money into Social Security trust funds/On the motion This vote was essentially the culmination of a battle of competing procedural maneuvers over whether to send a bill back to the Financial Services Committee to add language that would transfer certain funds to the Social Security Trust Fund. The motion was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $350 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Bachmann of Minnesota amendment that would eliminate proposed changes to and additional funding for a homeowners program/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., that would have eliminated certain proposed changes to and additional funding for the program known as Hope for Homeowners. Hope for Homeowners was enacted in July 2008 and provides Federal Housing Administration guarantees and refinancing help for qualifying families who are at risk of losing their home due to rising mortgage rates. The amendment was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of $350 billion enacted to enable the government to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Hensarling of Texas amendment that would remove the authority for the Treasury Department to attend meetings of the board of directors of institutions receiving bailout money /On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, that would remove the authority of the Treasury secretary to send an observer to board of directors meetings of institutions receiving bailout funds. The amendment was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $700 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies. This ?bailout? money is intended to help ease a credit crunch that is stifling business across the nation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Frank of Massachusetts amendment that would require some bailout money to be committed for foreclosure mitigation/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Barney Frank, D-Mass., that would require the Treasury Department to commit between $40 billion and $100 billion to ensure renters living in a building being foreclosed upon would be protected. The amendment was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $700 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies. This ?bailout? money is intended to help ease a credit crunch that is stifling business across the nation. ?Now, I don?t want to see the auto companies fail. Nobody in America does. But name me an industry in America that isn?t struggling. Is Congress so wise that they can decide which industries are deserving the taxpayer bailout and which aren?t?? Hensarling said. ?And if it?s the auto industry today, is it the airlines industry tomorrow? Who is it next week? Again, how can everybody who?s struggling bail out everybody else who?s struggling?? ?Now, it doesn?t get specific as to institutions. It shouldn?t. We don?t pick institutions here. We empower them and direct them, in some cases, to deal with the whole economy and with classes of institutions. There is no selection here by Congress of this or that company or even line of business,? Frank said, then suggested that it was the Bush administration that decided where the first raft of funding should go, including to automakers. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
H Res 53. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Providing for consideration of a bill that would set new conditions on the use of money to purchase mortgage assets (HR 384)/On passing the bill This vote was on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $700 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies. This ?bailout? money is intended to help ease a credit crunch that is stifling business across the nation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
HR 2. (Children?s health insurance) On passing a bill that would authorize the State Children?s Health Insurance Program at $60 billion/On passing the bill This vote was on passing a bill to reauthorize the State Children?s Health Insurance Program over 4.5 years. The SCHIP program ? funded primarily through taxes on tobacco products -- helps low income families with children afford health insurance, and currently covers about 6 million kids. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
HR 2. (Children?s health insurance program) Motion to rewrite a State Children?s Health Insurance Program bill to authorize the program for longer but require more eligibility hurdles for certain applicants/On the motion This vote was on a motion to send a bill reauthorizing the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) back to the Energy and Commerce Committee for a rewrite (known as ?motion to recommit?). Nathan Deal, R-Ga., wanted the committee to add language that would expand the bill to seven years, and require states to insure 90 percent of children in families with incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level before the program could be expanded to cover families with higher levels of income than are currently eligible. Deal also wanted the committee to stiffen eligibility restrictions for both legal and illegal immigrants, as well as paying for the $60 billion expansion by making some changes to the corporate tax code. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
H Res 52. (Children?s health insurance program) Providing for consideration of a bill that would provide funding for the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (HR 2)/On passing the bill This vote was on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would dole out $60 billion for the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) over a time period of 4.5 years. The SCHIP program ? funded primarily through taxes on tobacco products -- helps low income families with children afford health insurance, and currently covers about 6 million kids. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
HR 11. (Wage discrimination) On passing a bill that would extend the time in which employees could sue for wage discrimination/On passing the bill This vote was on a bill that would allow employees to file suit for wage discrimination within 180 days of the time they received their last paycheck. It also would stipulate that employees who won a discrimination suit are entitled to up to two years of back pay. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
HR 12. (Pay equality) On passing a bill that would make it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination/On passing the bill This vote was on passing a bill that would make it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination in court. It would require any employer seeking to justify unequal pay to prove that the disparity was job-related and required by some necessity of their business. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who disclose salary information with their co-workers. It also would allow workers who won wage discrimination cases to collect compensatory and punitive damages. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
HR 12. (Pay equality) Motion to rewrite a pay equality bill to stipulate that employers found liable of pay discrimination would not have to compensate certain legal fees/On the motion This vote was on sending a pay equality bill back to the Education and Labor Committee to add language stating that employers found liable of pay discrimination would not have to compensate more than $2,000 per hour in lawyers fees in court cases. This "motion to recommit" was offered to a bill that would make it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Women?s Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
H Res 5. (House organizing resolution) On adopting a resolution setting out the House rules for the 111th Congress/On the motion This vote was on adopting a resolution setting for the rules of the House for the 111th Congress. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
H Res 5. (House organizing resolution) Motion to change a resolution outlining the House of Representatives' committee structure to preserve term limits for chairmen/On the motion This vote was on a motion to send a bill outlining the rules of the House and its committee structure in the 111th Congress to a select committee for a rewrite (known as a "motion to recommit"). David Dreier, R-Calif., who made the motion, wanted the bill rewritten to remove a provision that lifts a six-year cap on how long someone can serve as chairman of a committee. Dreier also wanted to remove a provision in the bill that directs that any motions to recommit made in the future must be reported back "forthwith" rather than "promptly." MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 690 |
On Passage: H R 7321 Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 688 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7321, to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 687 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7321, to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 685 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1533 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 684 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1533 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 681 |
On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 1424 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 680 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1525 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1424, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 679 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1525 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1424, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 677 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: S 3641 To authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 674 |
On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment: H R 3997 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 672 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 440 Provding for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 671 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1517 Rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1517 Rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 667 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1514 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 666 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1514 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 663 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6707 Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 662 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 7081 United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 660 |
On Passage: H R 7110 Making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 658 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1507 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7110, making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 657 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1507 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7110, making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1503 Rule waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 654 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1503 Rule waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 652 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1500 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 651 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1500 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 649 |
On Passage: H R 7060 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 648 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 7060 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1502 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7060, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1502 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7060, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1501 Proceedings on Roll Call 640 were vacated by unanimous consent. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 638 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1490 Same Day Rule |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 637 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1490 Same Day Rule |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 631 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 3001 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1488 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 629 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1488 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1488 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
On Passage: H R 5244 Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 622 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5244 Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1476 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5244, Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 619 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1476 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5244, Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 614 |
On Passage: H R 3036 No Child Left Inside Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3036 No Child Left Inside Act of 2008 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1441 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3036, to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1441 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3036, to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 609 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 1460 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On Passage: H R 6604 Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6604 Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1449 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6604, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1449 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6604, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 601 |
On Passage: H R 6842 National Capital Security and Safety Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6842 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
On Passage: H R 6899 Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6899 Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1434 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1433 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1433 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 593 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1433 Rule for H.R. 6899, the Energy Bill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Passage: H R 3667 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3667 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 580 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 3667 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3667, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3667, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
On Motion to Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 6599 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriation, FY 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 6599 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 6599 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 6599 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Passage: H R 1338 Paycheck Fairness Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1338 Paycheck Fairness Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1338 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 550 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1384 Providing for consideration of H. R. 6599, Military Consruction and Veterans? Affairs Appropriations, FY 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1384 Providing for consideration of H. R. 6599, Military Consruction and Veterans? Affairs Appropriations, FY 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1388 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1388 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 1396 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1108 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 540 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6604 Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 398 Adjournment Resolution |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1368 Relating to the House procedures contained in section 803 of the Medicare Presciption Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 5501 Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3999 National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6578 Consumer Energy Supply Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1362 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5501) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1367 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1367 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1344 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3999, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1344 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3999, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 6545 National Energy Security Intelligence Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment: H R 3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1363 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1363 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6515 Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1350 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1350 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Passage: H R 415 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 415 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 415 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5959 Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5959 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1339 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 415) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1339 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 415) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1343 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1343 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5803 To direct the Election Assistance Commission to establish a program to make grants to participating States and units of local goverment to carry out a program to make backup paper ballots in the case of the failure of a voting system or voting equipment |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On Motion to Refer: H RES 1345 The Kucinich Resolution |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1286 Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1317 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1286) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1317 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1286) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Passage: H R 5811 Electronic Message Preservation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1318 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5811, The Electronic Message Preservation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1318 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5811, The Electronic Message Preservation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6251 Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Passage: H R 6052 Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6052 Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1304 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6052, to promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1304 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6052, to promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6358 Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 457 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2176 To provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
On Passage: H R 6275 Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6275 Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1299 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1297 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1297 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1298 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1298 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6346 Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 379 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Passage: H R 6304 FISA Amendments Act of 2008 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1276 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1276 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
Agree to Senate Amendment to House Amendment No. 1: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On Passage: H R 5781 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5781 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5710 Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1277 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5781, to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1277 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5781, to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6063 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2964 Captive Primate Safety Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Passage: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
Motion to table the appeal: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1265 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1265 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1257 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1257 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Motion to Refer: H RES 1258 The Kucinich Privilege Resolution |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Passage: H R 6003 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6003 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6003 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 6003 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1253 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1253 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3058 Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5540 Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5540 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S CON RES 70 The Congressional Budget Resolution |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1233 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1233 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On Passage: H R 3021 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3021 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3021 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3021 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1234 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act? |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1234 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act? |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5658 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5658 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5658 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5658 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5658 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5658 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5658 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5658 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5658 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5658 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6124 To provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through the fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 1221 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1218 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1218 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1771 Crane Conservation Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Passage: H R 6049 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6049 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1214 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1214 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1213 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, National Defense Authorization, 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1212 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1212 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1464 Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 355 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 3: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 2: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1197 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1197 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S CON RES 70 The Congressional Budget Resolution |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1190 Providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1190 Providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1189 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1189 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1189 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Cantor Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Flake Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment with Amendment No. 3: H R 3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment with Amendment No. 1: H R 3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Passage: H R 5818 Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5818 Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5818 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5818 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Motion That The Committee Rise: H R 5818 Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 5937 To facilitate the preservation of certain affordable housing dwelling units |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1113 Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother?s Day |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1166 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding provocative and dangerous statements and actions taken by the Government of the Russian Federation that undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1155 Honoring the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1168 Congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: S 2929 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1109 Honoring the memory of Dith Pran by remembering his life?s work and continuing to acknowledge and remember the victims of genocides that have taken place around the globe |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H CON RES 317 Condemning the Burmese regime?s undemocratic constitution and scheduled referendum |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 3658 To amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to permit rest and recuperation travel to United States territories for members of the Foreign Service |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1011 Calling on the United States Government and the international community to promptly develop, fund, and implement a comprehensive regional strategy to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian operations, contain and reduce violence, and contribute to conditions for sustainable peace and good governance in Chad |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
Table motion to reconsider: H RES 952 To establish a National Teacher?s Day |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1167 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1167 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Passage: H R 5522 Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5522 Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5522 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1157 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the ?Combustable Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act? |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1157 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the ?Combustable Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act? |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2830 Coast Guard Authorization for 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1126 Providing for the consideration of H. R. 2830, Coast Guard Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1126 Providing for the consideration of H. R. 2830, Coast Guard Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5819 SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1125 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5819, to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1125 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5819, to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2537 Beach Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On Passage: H R 2634 Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2634 Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1107 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1107 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1103 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2634, Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1103 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2634, Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On Passage: H R 5719 Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5719 Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5036 Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1102 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5719 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1102 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5719 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2537 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1092 Relating to the consideration of the bill H.R. 5274 to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1083 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2537, Beach Protection Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Passage: H R 2016 National Landscape Conservation System Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2016 National Landscape Conservation System Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2016 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2016 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2016 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2016 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1084 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1084 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4847 United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Passage: H R 5501 Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5501 Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1065 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1065 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
Agree to the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 3773 To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purpoes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1041 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1041 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 312 Revising the congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 312 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 312 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 312 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 316 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5563 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1036 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 312, Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1036 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 312, Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2009 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 1040 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 1039 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1031 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 895) establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1031 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 895) establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2857 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education ?GIVE? Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2857 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2857 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2857, to reauthorize and reform the national service laws |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2857, to reauthorize and reform the national service laws |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Passage: H R 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1014 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1014, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1014 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1014, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1014 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1014, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Passage: H R 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1001 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1001 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1001 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3521 Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 974 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 974 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 982 Providing for the adoption of H. Res. 979 and H. Res. 980, contempt of Congress resolutions. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 293 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Passage: H R 5349 To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5349 To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4137 To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4137 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4137 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4137 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 956 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 956 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Passage: H R 1528 New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1528 New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Extension and Improvement |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Extension and Improvement |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Passage: H R 3524 HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3524 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3524 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3524 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3524 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4986 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On Passage: H R 2768 S-MINER Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2768 S-MINER Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2768 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2768 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 918 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2768, to establish improved mandatory standards to protect miners during emergencies, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1186 |
Agree to Senate Adt to House Adt to Senate Adt: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1177 |
On Agreeing to Senate Adt to House Adt to Senate Adt: H R 6 Energy Independence and Security Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1175 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 877 Providing for the consideration of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1174 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 877 Providing for the consideration of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1172 |
On agreeing to Senate amendment with 2nd House amendment: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1171 |
On agreeing to Senate amendment with 1st House amendment: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1169 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 878 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, State, foreign operations appropriations, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1168 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 878 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, State, foreign operations appropriations, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1167 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 271 Sine Die Adjournment resolution of the 1st Session of the 110th Congress |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1166 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 873 Same Day Rule |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1165 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 873 Same Day Rule |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1161 |
Table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair: H J RES 69 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1160 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2082 Intelligence Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1159 |
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2082 Intelligence Authorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1158 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 859 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2082), Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1157 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 859 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2082), Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1156 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 869 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 69) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1154 |
On motion to postpone consideration of the veto message: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1153 |
On Passage: H R 4351 AMT Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1152 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4351 AMT Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1151 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1585 National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1150 |
On Passage: H R 4299 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1149 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4299 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1148 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 861 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4351, AMT Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1147 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 861 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4351, AMT Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1146 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 860 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1145 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 862 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4299, Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1140 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments with Amendments: H R 6 Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1137 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 846 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6), Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1136 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 846 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6), Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1134 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 846 Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation?s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, & alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, & creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency & Renewable Reserve to invest in alternative enery |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1128 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1585 National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1125 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2082 Intelligence Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1122 |
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1120 |
On Passage: H R 3773 Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1119 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3773 Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1118 |
On Passage: H R 3915 Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1117 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3915 Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1116 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3915 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1115 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3915 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1114 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3915 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1113 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 259 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1112 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3915 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1111 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 824 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1110 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 824 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1109 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 825 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1108 |
On Passage: H R 4156 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1107 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4156 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1104 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1103 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1102 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1101 |
On Motion to Recommit Conference Report: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1099 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1098 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1097 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1096 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1093 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1086 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 813 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1429, to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1081 |
On Passage: H R 3996 Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1078 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 809 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1077 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 809 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1076 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3093 Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1075 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1074 |
On Passage: H R 3355 Homeowners? Defense Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1073 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3355 Homeowners? Defense Act of 2007 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1072 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3355 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1071 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3355 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1070 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3355 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1069 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3355 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1068 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3355 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1066 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 802 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3355) to ensure the availability and affordability of homeowners? insurance coverage for catastrophic events. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1065 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 802 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3355) to ensure the availability and affordability of homeowners? insurance coverage for catastrophic events. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1063 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 806 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1062 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 806 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1061 |
Will the House now consider the resolution: H RES 806 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1060 |
On Passage: H R 3688 United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1057 |
On Passage: H R 3685 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1056 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3685 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1055 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3685 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 1053 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 793 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3685, to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1052 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 793 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3685, to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1050 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1048 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 794 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1047 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 794 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1044 |
Will the House now consider the resolution: H RES 794 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agecies. |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1039 |
On Motion to Refer the Resolution: H RES 799 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1038 |
On ordering the previous question: H RES 799 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1033 |
On Passage: H R 2262 Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1032 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2262 Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1031 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2262 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1030 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2262 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1028 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 780 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2262, to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1027 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 780 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2262, to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1026 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1025 |
On Passage: H R 3920 Trade and Globalization Assistance Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1024 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3920 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1022 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 781 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3920, Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1021 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 781 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3920, Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1016 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3867 Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1013 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 773 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3867) to update and expand the procurement programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1010 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3224 Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1009 |
On Passage: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1008 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1007 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1006 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1004 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1003 |
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 1000 |
On Passage: H R 505 Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 999 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 505 Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 998 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 764 Providing for consideration of H.R. 505, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 997 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 764 Providing for consideration of H.R. 505, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 996 |
On Passage: H R 1483 Celebrating America?s Heritage Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 995 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1483 Celebrating America?s Heritage Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 994 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1011 Virginia Ridge and Valley Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 992 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 765 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1483, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 991 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 765 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1483, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 990 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 763 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1011, to designate additional National Forest System lands in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 986 |
On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 767 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 983 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 189 Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 982 |
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 976 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 979 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2095 Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 977 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 724 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2095, Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 975 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 746 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3773, Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 or ?RESTORE Act of 2007?. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 974 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 746 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3773, Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 or ?RESTORE Act of 2007?. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 967 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 742 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2102, Free Flow of Information Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 966 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 742 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2102, Free Flow of Information Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 965 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 741 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 964 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 741 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 960 |
On Passage: H R 3056 Tax Collection Responsibility Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 959 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3056 Tax Collection Responsibility Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 958 |
On Passage: H R 2895 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 957 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2895 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 956 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2895 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 954 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 719 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 953 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 719 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 952 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 720 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2895, National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 951 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 720 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2895, National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 947 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3648 Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 946 |
On Passage: H R 3246 Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 945 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3246 Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 944 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 703 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3648, Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 943 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 703 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3648, Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 942 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 704 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3246, Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 941 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 704 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3246, Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 939 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2740 MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 938 |
On Postponing to a Date Certain: H R 976 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 936 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 928 Improving Government Accountability Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 935 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 928 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 934 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 702 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 933 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 702 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 932 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 701 Providing for consideration of H.R. 928, to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to enhance the independence of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 927 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3087 To require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 922 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3567 Small Business Investment Expansion Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 921 |
On Passage: H R 3121 Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 920 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3121 Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 919 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3121 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 918 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 683 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3121, Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 917 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 683 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3121, Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 916 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 682 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3567, Small Business Investment Expansion Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 915 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 682 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3567, Small Business Investment Expansion Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 913 |
On Passage: H R 2693 Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 912 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2693 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 910 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 52 Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 909 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 678 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2693) to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 908 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 677 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 906 |
Agree to Senate Amendments with Amendments: H R 976 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 904 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 976, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 903 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 976, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 902 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H RES 675 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 890 |
On Passage: H R 2881 FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 888 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 664 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2881, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 887 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 664 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2881, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 884 |
On Passage: H R 2761 Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 883 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2761 Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 882 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2761 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 880 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 660 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2761, Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 879 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 660 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2761, Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 875 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1852 Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 874 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1852 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 873 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1852 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 872 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 650 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 871 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 650 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 867 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3246 Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 864 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 863 |
On Passage: H R 1908 Patent Reform Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 862 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1908 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 861 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 637 Providing for consideration of conference report to accompany H.R. 2669, College Cost Reduction and Access Act. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 860 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 636 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1908, Patent Reform Act of 2007. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 858 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2786 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 857 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2786 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 856 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2786 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 855 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 633 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2786) to reauthorize the programs for housing assistance for Native Americans. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 849 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 845 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3222 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 843 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3222 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 841 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3222 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 840 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3222 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 838 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3222 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 836 |
On Passage: S 1927 Protect America Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 835 |
On Passage: H R 2776 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 833 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 623 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 832 |
On Passage: H R 3221 New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 831 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3221 New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 830 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 3221 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 828 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3221 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 827 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3221 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 826 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 615 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3221, Energy Policy Act and H.R. 2776, to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 825 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 615 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3221, Energy Policy Act and H.R. 2776, to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 822 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 612 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 821 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3356 Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 818 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 600 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 816 |
On Passage: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 814 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 808 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3161 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 807 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3161 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 806 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3161 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 803 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3161 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 801 |
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 2272 21st Century Competitiveness Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 800 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 599 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3161, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 799 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 599 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3161, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 796 |
On Passage: H R 3159 Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 795 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3159 Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 794 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 601 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 793 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 601 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 792 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 602 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2272, 21st Century Competitiveness Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 791 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 602 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2272, 21st Century Competitiveness Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 787 |
On Passage: H R 3162 Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 786 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3162 Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 785 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 594 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3162, Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 784 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 594 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3162, Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 782 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 594 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3162, Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 778 |
On Motion That The Committee Rise: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 777 |
Sustain the ruling of the Chair: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 776 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 3161 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 770 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2272 21st Century Competitiveness Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 769 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 581 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3161, Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 768 |
On Passage: H R 2831 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 767 |
On Passage: H R 986 Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 766 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 986 Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 762 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 579 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discriminaiton in Employment Act of 1967, the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 761 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 579 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discriminaiton in Employment Act of 1967, the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 760 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 580 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 986, to designate the Eightmile River in the state of Connecticut |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 759 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 580 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 986, to designate the Eightmile River in the state of Connecticut |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 756 |
On Passage: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 755 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 754 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2419 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 753 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2419 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 752 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2419 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 750 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2419 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 749 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2419 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 747 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2419 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 746 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 574 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 744 |
On Passage: H R 3093 Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 743 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3093 Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 742 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 741 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 740 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 739 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 737 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 734 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 733 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 3093 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 729 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 727 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 723 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3093 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 722 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 721 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 720 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3093 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 716 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 562 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3093, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 715 |
On Passage: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 714 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 713 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3074 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 712 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 711 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 710 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 709 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 708 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 703 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 3074 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 697 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 696 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 695 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 694 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 692 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 691 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3074 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 690 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 558 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3074, the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 686 |
On Passage: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 685 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Lewis of California motion to send the bill back to committee to add language allowing background checks on teachers and other employees/On the motion This vote was on a motion by Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., to send the bill back to the Appropriations Committee for a rewrite (known as a ?motion to recommit?). Lewis wanted the committee to add language that would allow funding provided to schools and other agencies to be used to conduct background checks on teachers and other employees. The motion was made to the fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 684 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Pence of Indiana amendment that would prohibit funding from going toward Planned Parenthood/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Mike Pence, R-Ind., that would prohibit funds in the bill from going toward Planned Parenthood. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 683 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Campbell of California amendment that would cut spending across the board by .25 percent/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by John Campbell, R-Calif., that would cut spending in the bill by .25 percent. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. The amendment was the last in a series of Republican attempts to cut varying amounts of money from the bill (all unsuccessful). MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 682 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Musgrave of Colorado amendment that would cut .5 percent of spending/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., that would cut spending in the bill across the board by .5 percent. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 681 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Price of Georgia amendment that would cut spending across the board by 1 percent/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Tom Price, R-Ga., that would cut spending in the bill by 1 percent. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 680 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Jordan of Ohio amendment that would cut spending across the board by 4.6 percent/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, that would cut funds in the bill across the board by 4.6 percent. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 678 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Campbell of California amendment that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Charles B. Rangel Center in New York City/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by John Campbell, R-Calif., that would prohibit funds from going to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 676 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Westmoreland of Georgia amendment that would prohibit federal student aid applications forms from using any language other than English/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., that would prohibit federal student aid applications from being provided in a language other than English. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 675 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Camp of Michigan amendment that would prohibit Medicare and Medicaid from barring enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Dave Camp, R-Mich., that would prohibit the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing any policy that would prohibit a current beneficiary of Medicare from enrolling in the Medicare Advantage program. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 674 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Souder of Indiana amendment that would prohibit an employee union from being recognized if it was not chosen in a secret-ballot election/On agreeing to an amendment This vote was on an amendment by Mark Souder, R-Ind., that would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from recognizing a new employee union if it was not chosen by a secret-ballot election. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 673 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 62 to H R 3043 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 672 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Davis of Kentucky amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to provide cash awards for performance for certain positions in the government/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Geoff Davis, R-Ky., that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for performance-based bonuses or cash awards to any Social Security Administration (SSA) or Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) employee who are senior executives. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Flake of Arizona amendment that would bar funds for a Kansas museum/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that would prohibit funds from going to the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 668 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Flake of Arizona amendment that would block funding for a ballet project/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz,. that would prohibit funds from being expended for the American Ballet Theatre in New York City. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 667 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Hensarling of Texas amendment that would prohibit funds from being expended on the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft and Technician Training project/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, that would delete from the bill $300,000 in funding slated to go to the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft and Technician Training project at West Los Angeles College. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 666 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Barton of Texas amendment that would prohibit National Institutes of Health funds to be transferred through certain programs/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Joe Barton, R-Texas, that would prohibit the national Institutes of Health (NIH) from transferring its funding to Department of Health and Human Services agencies through a program known as Evaluation Tap. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 665 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Dingell of Michigan amendment that would prohibit the deputy commissioner of Social Security from being paid until the Senate confirms his nomination/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by John Dingell, D-Mich., that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to pay the salary of the deputy commissioner of Social Security before the commissioner has been confirmed by the Senate. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Preserving Social Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
Shadegg of Arizona amendment that would cut the Innovation and Improvement account by $11 million/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by John Shadegg, R-Ariz., that would cut the underlying bill's Innovation and Improvement account by $11 million. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Foxx of North Carolina amendment that would increase special education grants while eliminating funding for ?full service community schools?/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., that would increase by $10 million educational grants for individuals with disabilities, and would pay for the increase by cutting the same amount of money from the Innovation and Improvement account. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 653 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Price of Georgia amendment that would increase teacher incentives funding by $21 million/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Tom Price, R-Ga., that would increase the Teacher Incentive Fund by $21 million, paid for by reducing Teacher Quality States Grants by an equal amount. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 650 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Graves of Missouri amendment that would increase funding for individuals with disabilities/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Sam Graves, R-Mo., that would increase special education funding for those with disabilities by $125 million, and would pay for that increase by cutting the same amount of money from the National Institutes of Health's global AIDS fund. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 649 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Barton of Texas amendment that would change the distribution formula for HIV/AIDS funding/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Joe Barton, R-Texas, that would remove language in the bill prohibiting funding under the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program from being reduced more than between 8.4 percent and 13.4 percent depending on the geographic area. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, Domestic |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 648 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Jindal of Louisiana amendment that would modify funding for nursing retention and education/On agreeing to the amendment
This vote was on an amendment by Bobby Jindal, R-La., that would increase funding for nursing retention and education by $37 million, and then immediately decrease it by the same amount. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 647 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Stearns of Florida amendment that would increase funding for certain educational programs by reducing grants to AmeriCorps/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., that would boost funding for the TRIO Talent Search and Upward Bound programs and geriatric education programs, both by $12 million. It would pay for this by decreasing, by an equal amount, funding for grants to AmeriCorps. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. By a vote of 182-242, the amendment was rejected. All but 10 Democrats present voted against the amendment. Of Republicans present, 172 voted for the amendment and 25 voted against it. The end result is that the amendment that would have reduced AmeriCorps funding and increased funding for immigrant college students and the elderly was defeated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Sessions of Texas amendment that would allow more federal jobs to be considered for outsourcing/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that would have allowed the federal government to consider outsourcing more federal workers in the departments of Labor, Health and Education. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. The underlying bill contains a provision that prohibits such outsourcing pending a review by the Government Accountability Office; Sessions? amendment would have lifted that prohibition. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 173-251. Every Democrat present voted against the amendment. Of Republicans present, 173 voted for the amendment and 23 voted against it. The end result is that the bill went forward with its prohibition against expanding the outsourcing of federal jobs intact. LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Jindal of Louisiana amendment that would increase funding for the Centers for Disease Control by cutting funding for a Labor Department program/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Bobby Jindal, R-La., that would increase funding by $50 million for the Centers for Disease Control?s division dedicated to eliminating tuberculois. It would pay for this increase by reducing the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by an equal amount. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. By a vote of 183-243, the amendment was rejected. Of Democrats present, 19 voted for the amendment and 210 voted against it. Of Republicans present, 164 voted for the amendment and 33 voted against it. The end result is that an amendment that would have bolstered tuberculosis funding by cutting funding for the Labor Department was defeated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Marchant of Texas amendment that would reduce funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, that would reduce funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by $58 million. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 149-277. All but one Democrat voted against the amendment (Gene Taylor of Mississippi). Of Republicans present, 148 voted for the amendment and 49 voted against it. The end result is that the bill went forward with funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs intact. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Platts of Pennsylvania amendment that would increase funding for the Even Start program and reduce funding for other programs/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Todd Platts, R-Pa., that would increase funding by $50 million for the Education Department?s Even Start program. It also would reduce funding by $28 million for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $11 million for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, $11 million for administrative expenses of the Administration on Aging, and $900,000 from the Education Department?s management account. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 174-250. Of Republicans present, 150 voted for the amendment and 45 voted against it. Of Democrats present, 24 voted for the amendment and 205 voted against it. The end result is that the amendment that would have boosted Even Start funding and reduced funding for certain Labor Department programs was rejected. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 642 |
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 labor, health, education spending) Kline of Minnesota amendment that would increase employment standards funding/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by John Kline, R-Minn., that would boost funding for the Labor Department?s Office of Labor and Management Standards (OLMS) by $2 million and reduce funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by $3 million. OLMS was created in 1959 to enforce the provisions of the law that ensures that labor unions adhere to ?basic standards of democracy and fiscal responsibility.? The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008. Kline said without his amendment, OLMS will have to cut its staff and that this could hurt labor union memers who want to know how their union dues are being spent. ?Rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions were spending and investing their members? dues money; that their unions? books were clean; and that elections for union officers would be fair and free of intimidation or scandal,? Kline said. ?OLMS functions like the Securities and Exchange Commission for labor unions.? David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said that OLMS has had its staff increased by 25 percent over the past four years, and that it is hardly being starved. ?So it seems to me that what the gentleman?s amendment does is to enrich the one portion of the Labor Department which has been doing very well, thank you, and they have been doing very well while other portions of the Labor Department that are supposed to focus on protecting workers have, in fact, been starved,? Obey said. By a vote of 186-237, the amendment was rejected. All but eight Democrats present voted for the amendment. Of Republicans present, 178 voted for the amendment and 16 voted against it. The end result is that the bill went forward without language that would have boosted money for forcing labor unions to disclose finances and trimmed money for international labor affairs.
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 641 |
HR 2641. (Fiscal 2008 Energy and water spending) On passing a bill to fund energy and water projects in fiscal 2008/On passing the bill This vote was on passing a $31.6 billion bill that would fund energy and water development projects, including those at the Energy Department, Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers. This sum includes funding for hundreds of water and wastewater infrastructure projects, as well as those related to locks, dams and inland waterways. The measure would also appropriate $8.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration and $494.5 million for a controversial proposed nuclear waste dump at Nevada?s Yucca Mountain. The bill also includes more than $1 billion in various water projects requested by members of Congress (often referred to as ?earmarks?). Most of the debate time on this bill was absorbed by Republicans? unsuccessful attempts to curb or, in one case, completely erase, the earmarks in the measure. ?When I see a group of earmarks that are going to institutions in Members? districts, and I reflect upon the fact that we are now on a collision course to either double taxes on the next generation, or, for all intents and purposes, have no Federal Government, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we have got to start saving the pennies. When we start saving the pennies, eventually, the dollars will take care of themselves,? said Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, in a comment that was typical of the debate. Republicans mostly agreed with Hensarling, but some defended the practice of allowing members to set aside money for projects beneficial to their districts, and noted that the White House itself often makes its own earmark requests. ?I think this is a well done bill. I think the earmarks are essential to Congress doing its oversight. I wish, frankly, we could work better with the administration on their earmarks. We don?t know what they?re going to do. They don?t come and talk to us. Even in the hearings, we have no idea where they?re going to spend all their money on the projects they want,? said David Hobson, R-Ohio. By a vote of 312-112, the House passed the bill. All but one Democrat present voted for the bill (Shelley Berkley of Nevada). Of Republicans present, 86 voted for the bill and 111 voted against it. The end result is that the House passed a bill that would provide $31.6 billion for energy and water projects in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Infrastructure Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 635 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1 Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 634 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 547 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1851 Section 8 Voucher Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 627 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1851 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 626 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1851 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 625 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1851 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 624 |
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, requiring a pullout of ground troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On passage This was a vote on final passage of a bill to require a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008. Democrats justified the legislation on the grounds that it was past time for a timetable to bring the troops home, and that President Bush's strategy was clearly not working, creating only further strife in an already ware-torn country. "We need a responsible redeployment. This legislation gives it to us. It states that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of armed forces in that country beginning not later than 120 days after the date of enactment," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.). The measure would further require that troop levels be reduced to a limited presence defined in the bill by April 2008. "The question before us, are we, as a country, any safer now than we were when we went into Iraq in March of 2003? What has it done for the security of our country?" Skelton continued. Republicans called the plan defeatist, lacking in vision and without a strategy for success. "This is an attempt once again to stampede a retreat from Iraq, and it is a gratuitous attempt to do this," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). "There is no reason, only three-and-one-half weeks after the surge of troops has been put in place, to now race for the borders, to demand that the president start to wind up this operation and start to leave, especially when General Petraeus will be making recommendations to us on September 15." Hunter and other Republicans disputed Democratic assertions that progress was not being made in the country and repeated President Bush's calls for patience. Democrats said they had been patient enough. The bill passed by a vote of 223 to 201. Four Republicans joined all but ten Democrats in voting for the measure, and legislation to require a pullout of combat forces from Iraq by April 2008 received the House's approval. The measure faced uncertain prospects in the Senate, and President Bush promised to veto it regardless. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, requiring a pullout of ground troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On tabling an appeal of the ruling of the chair This was a procedural vote with strong undertones about the role the war in Iraq is playing in the larger so-called war on terror. It came up during debate on a bill that would pull combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) had proposed a motion to recommit with instructions - a move to send the bill to the Intelligence Committee with language amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow electronic surveillance of "a particular known person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes." Basically, Wilson's motion would have amended the bill to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists within the United States. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) objected on the grounds that Wilson's amendment was not germane (relevant) to the bill, making a parliamentary move known as a point of order. Wilson responded that "intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and we are now knowingly operating with our fingers in our ears and our hands over our eyes." Skelton objected on the grounds that Wilson wasn't addressing the substance of his point of order. At which point the Speaker Pro Tempore (a Democratic appointee of the Speaker to oversee House debate) agreed with Skelton that Wilson's remarks were not "confined to the point of order at issue before this House," and gave her one last chance to address the substance of the point of order, that is, whether her amendment was relevant to the bill. Without mentioning Iraq, Wilson then started talking about national security and stated that everyone remembered "where we were on the morning of 9/11." "The reality is that this underlying bill deals with an issue of national security vital to this country, and the most important vital issue that this body must deal with today is to make sure we have the ability to listen to our enemies," Wilson continued, adding, "That is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and that is what we are willfully ignoring." At which point the Speaker Pro Tem ruled that Wilson's amendment was not germane to the bill, citing as evidence that her motion to recommit would have sent the bill to the Intelligence Committee, rather than the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that originally referred it to the House floor. "One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an amendment should be within the jurisdiction of the committees whose jurisdiction is reflected in the bill," added the Speaker Pro Tem. Wilson then appealed the ruling of the chair, and Skelton moved to table (kill) her appeal. This vote was on Skelton's motion to table. On an almost complete party-line vote, the House moved to table Wilson's appeal. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and only two Democrats defected and voted against the motion to table. Thus, by a vote of 224 to 197, the House tabled a motion to overrule the chair that an amendment to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance of persons in the United States was not sufficiently relevant to allow consideration of attaching to a bill to require combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by April 2008, and the bill moved toward a vote without the provision. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 621 |
H. Res. 533, Providing for consideration of legislation requiring a pullout of ground troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On agreeing to the resolution This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill requiring a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule" and allowed for no amendments. "The House of Representatives today should be prepared to engage in a free and fair debate regarding all of the potential options for the future conduct of combat operations and diplomatic initiatives in Iraq and the broader Middle East," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.). Instead, English said, the Democratic-dominated Rules Committee proposed rules for debate that didn't allow any amendments. He added that the legislation could have served as a starting point, but the Democrats had demonstrated that "their motivations are, at core, political." "The people who bring this rule to the floor today do not allow amendments because they're afraid. They're afraid that some of these amendments might prevail. They're afraid that, given viable alternatives, some Members of their own party will choose cooperation over confrontation," English continued. Democrats countered that enough was enough with the failed strategy in Iraq, and it was time to make changes, and that they were running the House in much the way Republicans did when they were in power. "What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the administration another chance to move the goalposts," said Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). "Instead, we will refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military, undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims: victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating their suffering." Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the resolution. Five Democrats crossed party lines and voted against it, as well. But even with defections among their own ranks, the majority Democrats still had the votes to pass the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 221 to 196, the House passed rules outlining debate for a bill that would require a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008, paving the way for the bill to come to the floor for a final vote. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
H. Res. 533, Providing for consideration of legislation requiring a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On ordering the previous question This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill requiring a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule" and allowed for no amendments. "It has actually been several weeks now since we have had a meaningless vote on the issue of Iraq, and so I suppose we are overdue for another one," said Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.). "And knowing that their proposal cannot withstand any critical scrutiny, they have once again shut down the process and brought this to us under a completely closed rule, not allowing any of the very thoughtful proposed alternatives to be considered whatsoever." Dreier brought an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have substituted the Democrat-drafted bill with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel created by Congress to study the war strategy and progress. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) responded to Democrats' claims that they were running the House much as the Republicans had when they were in power. "That is about the most insignificant and meaningless statement [they] could make, because Democrats are now in charge, and they are in charge in part because of the war in Iraq and because they promised to be different and have open debate and allow us all to say what we needed to say and from that find consensus." Democrats said it was time to stop debating and reign in the war. "The war in Iraq is breaking the back of our military. It is causing severe damage to the federal budget to the tune of $10 billion each month, and causing grave harm to the future fiscal health of our nation," Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) "And while President Bush keeps scorning deadlines and promising breakthroughs that never come, it is clear that he lacks the vision, the wisdom or the courage to chart a new course. It is frighteningly clear that the President plans, instead, to stay the course and dump this mess on the next President. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and change direction in Iraq." This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one (Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina) voted against the motion and all Democrats present but three (Reps. John Barrow and Jim Marshall of Georgia and Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania) voted for it, and the motion passed 225 to 197. Thus, a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to pull combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008 overcame a parliamentary hurdle and came one step from adoption. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1337 To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 986 Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Passage: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 612 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2669 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1701 To provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance (TMA) and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 531 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 531 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Passage: H R 2829 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2829 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 604 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 603 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 602 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 601 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2829 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 594 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 592 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2829 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2829 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2829 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2829 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, As Amended: H RES 517 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2829, Financial Services Appropriations, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 517 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 579 |
On Passage: H R 2643 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2643 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 2643 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 58 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 2643 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 53 to H R 2643 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 572 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 50 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 571 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2643 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2643 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2643 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
On Passage: H R 2771 Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2771 Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2771 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2771 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 502 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2771, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 502 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2771, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
On Passage: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2764 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2764 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2764 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2641 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
HR 2641 (Fiscal 2008 Energy and Water appropriations), Bishop of New York amendment to block the establishment of a floating liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a bill funding energy and water programs, introduced by Tim Bishop, D-N.Y. Bishop?s amendment would prohibit the establishment of a floating liquid natural gas facility planned for the middle of New York?s Long Island Sound, which has about 28 million people living within 50 miles of the water. It would effectively short-circuit the facility?s progress by directing the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (FERC) to stop considering its application. Bishop, whose district encompasses most of the Long Island area, said he does not want the project to go forward because of ?serious and debilitating environmental impacts? associated with the facility, which would be used to process liquefied natural gas. Bishop also cited safety and security concerns. ?Even the Coast Guard, which would be charged with securing this facility, has indicated that a much more full public discussion needs to take place in order to determine who is going to provide that security and who will fund it,? Bishop said. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who supported the amendment, said the facility would be roughly the size of the Queen Mary 2 (an enormous oceanliner), and sit just 10 miles off the coast of Connecticut, and 9 miles off the coast of Long Island. The facility would also require the construction of a 25-mile pipeline in the middle of what DeLauro called prime territory for fishing and lobstering, placing that area off-limits to those who make their living by fishing. On the other side are business and other interests who argue that the Long Island area has an enormous appetite for energy that could be partially satisfied by natural gas, a relatively clean-burning and efficient fuel. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind.,said FERC should be allowed to continue examining the proposed facility?s application, instead of stopping it cold through legislation. ?FERC?s consideration of applications to site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to judicial review,? Visclosky said. And Gene Green, D-Texas (a state heavily invested in the petrochemical industry) opposed the amendment, saying building more liquefied natural gas facilities can help ease America?s dependence on foreign sources of energy. ?Here in America we only have two options to increase our supply of natural gas to meet our energy needs ? we can build more LNG import plants and we can produce more gas offshore. There is no alternative to natural gas in many cases,? Green said. The House voted 285-146 to defeat the amendment. Republicans were largely united in their vote against the amendment, but Democrats split, with 94 voting against the Progressive position. Thus, the bill went forward without language that would have delayed a proposed liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound. ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2641 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2641 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2641 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2642 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2642 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2642 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2642 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
On Passage: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
HR 2638. (Fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations), Forbes of Virginia amendment that would prevent the Homeland Security Department from allowing certain immigrants to stay inside the United States beyond the period initially granted/On agreeing to the amendment This was a vote on an amendment by Randy Forbes, R-Va., that would prevent the Homeland Security Department from extending the duration of time immigrants from countries in crisis can remain in the U.S. without being deported. The agency is able to grant ?temporary protected status? (TPS) to immigrants from certain countries ? particularly those experiencing a crisis, such as a hurricane ? for 18 months. The agency may extend that status by adding another 18 months at its discretion. There is no cap on how many times the protected status may be extended. Forbes? amendment would remove the agency?s ability to extend the protected status beyond its initial 18 months. Forbes argued that some countries have had their status extended for decades, and that calling the protected status ?temporary? is misguided. He also said many of the immigrants protected from deportation by this designation are in the U.S. illegally, and include violent gang members. Further, Forbes said the open-ended nature of the extensions has created ?a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants from certain Central American countries.? Forbes opposes proposals to provide illegal immigrants with ?amnesty,? where instead of being prosecuted and deported for living in the United States illegally, they would be allowed to apply for green cards and, eventually, U.S. citizenship. ?TPS is being used to grant long-time residence, a perpetual amnesty, to illegal immigrants of certain favored nationalities. This amendment will return TPS to its original intent of providing temporary refuge during temporary periods of crisis,? Forbes said. David Price, D-N.C., said he opposed the amendment in the ?strongest possible terms? because it is designed to protect citizens of countries ?with severe hardships: civil wars, massive natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions.? Price said more than 4,000 people, from war-torn countries like the Sudan, could be deported if their temporary protected status were revoked. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said immigrants with temporary protected status should not be viewed as illegal immigrants. ?They?re here legally. They?re here because this Congress, this administration and other administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They?re here because they can?t go back home,? Serrano said. The House defeated the amendment, 298-123, a victory for Democrats, with some 79 Republicans taking their side. Thus the bill went forward without language removing the Homeland Security Department?s ability to indefinitely extend temporary protected status to certain immigrants. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2638 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2638 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
Procedural motion to declare consideration of the fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 2638) completed/On motion that the committee rise This vote was on a procedural motion that the House ?rise? and report as completed a bill the House had been debating (in this case, the bill that funds the Homeland Security Department ? HR 2638). Generally, these are non-controversial, routine motions that pass by voice vote once the House is finished with a bill. However, sometimes the minority party (in this case, the Republicans) calls up these motions prematurely, before a bill is actually finished, and then forces roll call votes on them as a way to express displeasure or delay progress, as was the case with this party-line vote. Unhappy with a Democratic announcement that appropriations bills would not contain any earmarks (typically money allocated to pet projects requested by individual members of Congress) until the bills reached the conference committee stage (where the House and Senate meet to reconcile their differing bills), Republicans forced numerous votes on meaningless motions and employed parliamentary maneuvers that kept the House tied up into the wee hours of the night over a series of days. This vote came toward the end of the third evening, after a particularly testy exchange between House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. ?We?ve already been told there will be earmarks added to the appropriation bill, but it won?t be until all the bills are passed that they?ll go to conference, and a few select members, representing probably 10 percent of the American people, they will add the earmarks. The American people will not ever know what these earmarks are until they?re passed into law,? Bachus asid. Obey interrupted Bachus. ?We keep hearing this mythical, robotic claim from the other side of the aisle that somehow these earmarks are going to be dropped in in conference,? Obey said. Obey said a list of every earmark would be filed within the next two months, and that members would have 30 days in which to review and comment on them before the bills are signed into law. Obey also pointed out that Republicans are no strangers to this practice, having done something similar between 1998 and 2005. ?They did not have any earmarks in the Labor-Health-Education bill until the bill was in conference. The only difference was those earmarks were never reviewed ahead of time. These will be. Those earmarks were never in public view. These will be,? Obey said. By a party line vote of 216-188, the House defeated the procedural motion that would have declared the bill?s consideration completed, a victory for Democrats. Thus, the House continued to debate the bill funding homeland security-related programs in fiscal 2008. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2638 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2638 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 473 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2638, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Passage: H R 65 Lumbee Recognition Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 65 Lumbee Recognition Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 465 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 465 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On Passage: S 5 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Motion to Commit with Instructions: S 5 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 464 Providing for consideration of S. 5, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 464 Providing for consideration of S. 5, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2560 Human Cloning Prohibition Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2446 Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2446 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
H Res 453. A rule providing for consideration of a bill (HR 2446) that would provide aid to Afghanistan/On agreeing to the resolution
This was the vote on passing a resolution outlining the rules for House floor consideration of a bill (HR 2446) that would allocate $6.4 billion in aid to Afghanistan. These types of resolutions ? drafted by the powerful House Rules Committee ? are tools the majority party (in this case, the Democrats) uses to control floor consideration of potentially contentious bills. These resolutions typically impose time limits on floor debate and enforce strict limits on exactly which amendments may be offered and which may not. Similarly, debate over these resolutions typically centers around the minority party?s concerns that the process for floor consideration is too restrictive and doesn?t allow for enough amendments to be offered. Debate over this resolution was no different. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Florida, complained that the rule was ?structured,? which restricts amendments to a list of ones approved by the committee, rather than ?open,? which would allow anyone to offer any amendment. ?Our friends on the other side of the aisle, again, the majority had another opportunity yesterday in the Rules Committee to open the process and come forth with an open rule,? Diaz-Balart said. He also took a shot at Democrats by reminding them that many of them ?promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a significant amount, as many as possible, of bills to the floor under open rules.? Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who chairs the Rules Committee, said every amendment brought before his committee will be allowed. ?We bring to the floor today [a rule] that makes every single amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee and not withdrawn by its author in order. Every Republican amendment, every Democratic amendment,? McGovern said. McGovern fired back at the Republican party, saying though the rule isn?t open, it?s ?in sharp contrast to the way they used to do business when the Republicans were in the majority, where there was a tendency to shut everything down, to close everything up, to not allow members of the minority to be able to have amendments.? As is typically the case with these types of resolutions governing floor debate, the House passed it on a strict party line vote, 220-195, with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition. The bill this rule structures debate on is a wide-ranging, bipartisan package of aid to Afghanistan, including anti-drug efforts and programs for women and girls. Thus, the House passed the resolution governing floor debate, and proceeded to the Afghanistan aid bill itself. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment No. 2: H R 2206 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2316 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2316 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2317 Lobbying Transparency Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 438 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 438 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 437 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2317, Lobbying Trancparency Act; and providing for the consideration of H.R. 2316, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 437 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2317, Lobbying Trancparency Act; and providing for the consideration of H.R. 2316, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Passage: H R 1100 Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1100 Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1100 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1100 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1252 Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 429 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1100) to revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 428 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 214 To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Passage: H R 1427 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1427 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
HR 1427. (Federal housing financing overhaul), Hensarling of Texas amendment to prevent affordable housing money from being transferred between funds/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a massive bill that sought to overhaul federal regulation of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, offered by Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee. Hensarling?s amendment was one in a series of Republican attempts to erase, cripple or otherwise chip away at a $3 billion affordable housing fund, which would help low-income families construct and maintain homes. Specifically, this amendment sought to prevent money from being transferred between two federal affordable housing accounts. Debate on the amendment, which was one in a series of votes called more to make a political point than actually effect change, centered mostly around the existence of the affordable housing fund itself, which the bill would fund at $3 billion. Opponents of the fund say funneling profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?s investment portfolio could threaten the companies? solvency. Others argue that it could become another type of entitlement spending (examples of which are Medicare and Social Security). ?I don?t know exactly what the housing trust fund is, but I?m nervous about it. I?m nervous about it because when I look at almost every other government trust fund, what I see is an entitlement,? Hensarling said. ?And the last thing we need to do is to be authorizing spending for a yet to be created entitlement spending fund.? Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chairs the Financial Services Committee, said the bill handles the trust fund this way to avoid running afoul of budget rules known as PAYGO, a congressional rule requiring any bill that creates new spending or reduces revenues be offset by a reduction in spending, or creation of new revenue. ?An entitlement means that individuals will be able to say ?Give me housing, I am entitled to it legally.? What we are saying is we will set up a housing fund. We will debate how it is distributed, but it will never be close to an entitlement,? Frank countered. With a vote of 263-155, the amendment was rejected on a largely party-line vote, with 39 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing it. The amendment?s defeat means the authority to transfer money between affordable housing funds is left intact. HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1427 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) amendment to require that the amount allocated to the affordable housing fund not exceed the amount allocated in the preceding year if in that year the federal government had a budget deficit and borrowed against the Social Security trust fund This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), would have required that the amount allocated to the affordable housing fund created by the legislation not exceed the amount allocated in the preceding year if in that year the federal government had an "actual on-budget deficit" and an "actual off-budget surplus" - budget-speak for borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the underlying bill Roskam's amendment was seeking to change would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs funded by contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Roskam said his amendment would simply "postpone the diversion of funds to the affordable housing trust fund that is created in this bill until such time as Congress stops raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for unrelated government programs." "This year, the majority proposed and passed a budget that assumes it will raid the entire Social Security surplus, an estimated $190 billion, to spend on other government programs, and that amount will increase to $203 billion for the year 2008," Roskam said. Roskam said a "yes" vote on his amendment would "take the money and put it into the Social Security trust fund." But that's where Roskam got into rhetorical trouble with Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) Frank asserted that Roskam misstated his own amendment. "He says, instead of putting it in the affordable housing Fund, put it into Social Security," Frank said. "Nothing in this amendment does that. This amendment says that if there is a deficit in the federal budget, then you don't put the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the affordable housing fund," but not put it into the Social Security trust fund as Roskam had originally indicated. "There is no connection between the money being spent from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Frank said, adding that "not spending the affordable housing fund would in no way reduce the deficit." When Frank asked him to clarify what he meant, Roskam said, "Maybe it is a two-step dance." To which Frank replied: "It is a two-step dance. Is the gentleman asking me to dance? He says it is a two-step dance. It is a Kabuki dance. It is a Dance of Seven Veils. I guess we will learn later what is the second step of the dance." Frank concluded that Roskam's amendment, or at least his own interpretation of is, "is a perfect definition of a non sequitur." Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, and 173 Republicans voted for it. Thus, on a near party-line vote of 173 to 245, the House voted to reject an attempt to tie contributions to an affordable housing program from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the federal government's borrowing against the Social Security trust fund, and a bill to reform the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market went forward without the provision. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/ Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) amendment to require that the boards of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac include five members appointed by the president This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), would have required the boards of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to include five presidential appointees and that each board consist of a total of seven to 15 directors. Kanjorski's amendment actually represented the status quo of sorts, as the underlying bill to which he was seeking to amend sought to remove the presidential appointees from the boards of directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a part. Kanjorski sought to retain what he deemed as the "public" directors on those boards. Kanjorski said the "unique nature" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's federal charters, having a minority of their respective boards of directors comprised of presidential appointees is "entirely appropriate." "Government-sponsored enterprises, by their very nature, are public/private entities, and they need to have a public voice at the highest levels of governance," Kanjorski said. . [The Federal National Mortgage Association (known as Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Corporation (Freddie Mac) were chartered by Congress in 1934 and 1970, respectively, in order to create a secondary market for mortgages and increase liquidity. Both have been plagued by considerable accounting, financial reporting and managerial problems in recent years, and this legislation aimed to reform the agencies by creating an oversight authority.] Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) responded to Kanjorski's support for presidentially appointed directors by pointing out the bipartisan determination by the Financial Services Committee that drafted the bill that political considerations were best removed from the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "We believe that you cannot serve two masters and do a good, faithful job to both masters," Feeney said. "One of the reasons that Fannie and Freddie got in accounting problems in the first place is because of a complacent board of directors that was populated with political employees." The opposition to Kanjorski's amendment was overwhelming. All but 20 Republicans opposed it, and only 134 Democrats supported it. Most of the House's most progressive lawmakers voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 154 to 263, the House rejected an attempt to restore the presidential appointment of a minority of the directors on the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and legislation to reform the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market went forward without the provision. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/ Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) amendment to require a study on the effects the contributions to the affordable housing fund would have on the cost of mortgages to homebuyers and suspend the program if the program served to increase the costs of mortgages This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the legislation would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs funded by contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), would have required the Government Accountability Office to study the effects the affordable-housing fund would have on the availability and affordability of credit for homebuyers and the extent to which the costs would be passed on to homebuyers. Republicans said the amendment was simply a way to assess whether the costs of the contributions to the affordable housing fund would be passed on to mortgage holders, and Democrats said it was a backdoor attempt to kill the program. "Some of us on this side of the aisle, many free market conservatives, believe that what is deemed the affordable housing Fund, the Housing trust fund, will be passed on straight to the mortgage consumers of America," McHenry said, "in essence, a tax increase on those who have mortgages, especially middle income individuals." Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) responded that the amendment was a thinly veiled attempt to "obliterate the program." "Now, it's very important for us to understand, we're dealing right now with a very volatile housing market," Scott said. "We're dealing with a situation where the subprime market has melted down. We're dealing with a situation where we've had record foreclosures. "There is a need for government. We have a constitutional responsibility to take care of the public interests. If there ever was a need for the public interest, it is needed in affordable housing," Scott said. Scott went on to explain that McHenry's amendment concerned him because it gave one regulator (the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency) the power to determine whether GAO's assessment meant that contributions to the affordable housing program were causing a decrease the availability or affordability of credit to home buyers or would increase the costs to homebuyers. "All of that power you are putting arbitrarily into a person's hands to say, on his whim, kill the program, done with the program, based upon what he sees and what he says," Scott said. The majority of lawmakers agreed with Scott's assessment, and the amendment was rejected easily. Fourteen Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic Caucus to oppose the amendment. Thus, by a vote of 176 to 240, the House rejected an attempt to require that contributions to an affordable housing program be predicated on whether the chief housing finance regulator interpreted a GAO report to mean that the program constituted a hidden tax on homebuyers. A bill to reform the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market went forward with the affordable housing program unaltered. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/ Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) amendment to suspend contributions to the affordable housing fund if the payments contribute to an increase in mortgage costs This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the legislation would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs funded by contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), would have suspended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's contributions to the affordable housing fund if the payments were to contribute to an increase in mortgage costs. Republicans believed that the creation of the affordable housing fund was a backdoor tax on mortgage holders by increasing the costs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would fund the program under the legislation. "Earlier this evening the chairman said that he believes that this will be paid by the shareholders," Hensarling said of Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank's (D-Mass.) previous remarks. "We believe on this side of the aisle that, due to the duopoly power, the Fannie and Freddie, that they already control roughly 80 percent of the market in which they operate, that a substantial portion of the cost of the so-called affordable housing Fund will, indeed, be imposed upon homeowners in the form of higher mortgages, indeed, functionally a mortgage tax, a new mortgage tax on the American people." Hensarling said that his amendment would have no effect if what Frank asserted were correct. But if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's contributions to the housing fund have "an adverse impact upon the cost of housing in America, that mortgages rise, that the program will be terminated," Hensarling said. Frank replied that Hensarling's amendment was simply another Republican attempt to "kill the fund, this time by obfuscation." (See also Roll Call 378.) "There are people who do not believe that the federal government should be encouraging the construction of affordable housing, and understand that however we propose to do it, they will object to it," Frank continued. "If we try to do it through appropriations, that will be a problem because of the deficit. Here we try to do it by taking, we believe, essentially from the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Frank also took issue with Hensarling's assertion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac constitute a government-sanctioned duopoly. "At one point it might have been. In fact, today, the securitization market is far more competitive," Frank concluded. "There are significant private competitors to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can raise prices at will does not seem to me to reflect economic reality." In the end, the House sided with Frank. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, and 27 Republicans joined them in opposing the amendment. Thus, by a vote of 164 to 253, the House rejected a proposal to suspend contributions to the affordable housing fund if regulators determined that the program was increasing the price of mortgages, and a bill to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went forward with the affordable housing fund intact. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) amendment to strike a provision creating an affordable housing fund This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the legislation would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), sought to strike the bill's provision creating an affordable housing fund. In introducing his amendment, Bachus said the country does not need another affordable housing program. "If we determine that the 90 some-odd housing programs are not being effective in addressing the needs of low-income and middle-income Americans, then we need to first reform those programs," Bachus said. "But, in passing legislation to strengthen the financial stability of our GSEs, we do not need at the same time to impose a $3 billion cost on them. Those are opposing actions." GSEs refer to government-sponsored enterprises, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are examples. The $3 billion figure referred to the cost of the housing program in the legislation. The Federal National Mortgage Association (known as Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Corporation (Freddie Mac) were chartered by Congress in 1934 and 1970, respectively, in order to create a secondary market for mortgages and increase liquidity. Both have been plagued by considerable accounting, financial reporting and managerial problems in recent years, and this legislation aimed to reform the agencies by creating an oversight authority. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) responded to Bachus' assertions by saying that the country currently does "not have enough programs currently being funded that build affordable housing for families." "We are not building public housing," Frank added. "We have the voucher program. The voucher program, on an annual basis, adds to the demand for housing in a way that does not increase supply. There is not now a generally funded affordable housing construction program for families, for working people." The majority of lawmakers sided with Frank. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, and they were joined by 43 Republicans in voting against the amendment. Thus, by a vote of 148 to 269, the House rejected a proposal to cut the affordable housing programs in the bill, and legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac proceeded with the new affordable housing programs intact. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/On agreeing to the conference report This was the final vote on the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The $3 trillion measure included almost $1 trillion in what is known as discretionary spending (not including Social Security and Medicare, among other "non-discretionary" programs). The total price tag total also included $143 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most of the funding for those conflicts has thus far come in "emergency" appropriations not outlined in any budget plan. The budget resolution - the first to be authored by Democrats since 1995 - projected a deficit of $252 billion for fiscal 2008, which would gradually turn into a surplus of $41 billion by fiscal 2012. The budget resolution sets to accomplish that mostly through letting most of President Bush's tax cuts expire, while maintaining -- and even increasing -- spending in health care, education, veterans' programs and housing. The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced. At this point in its legislative lifecycle, the budget resolution had already been passed by both chambers and then made it out of conference committee. If the two chambers pass differing versions of a measure, what's known as a conference committee is convened to hammer out the differences between the two resolutions and draft a consensus measure, which then must in turn be approved by both the House and Senate. This vote was on setting the rules for debate for the House's consideration of that conference committee report. Democrats lauded the budget resolution as the first step towards turning around what they deemed were the fiscal and moral improprieties of the first six years of Bush's presidency, most of which time the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. Republicans lambasted the plan as evidence of Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility and accused Democrats of a backdoor tax increase. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted on a near party-line vote. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and Democrats were able to pass the measure despite defection from 13 lawmakers among their ranks. By a final vote of 214 to 209, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution was thus passed by the House and sent to the Senate, were it was adopted the same day. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 409 Providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 21, to set forth the congressional budget for the United States Government |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
Outlining the rules for debate (H. Res. 409) for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/On ordering the previous question (to end debate and possibility of amendment) This was a crucial procedural vote on the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the Democrat-drafted budget resolution generally, and also because they opposed how Democrats proposed to handle spending rules known as "pay as you go" (PAYGO). To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represents one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. The budget resolution - the first to be authored by Democrats since 1995 - projected a deficit of $252 billion for fiscal 2008, which would gradually turn into a surplus of $41 billion by fiscal 2012. The budget resolution sets to accomplish that mostly through letting most of President Bush's signature tax cuts expire, while maintaining -- and even increasing -- spending in health care, education, veterans' programs and housing. The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced. The $3 trillion measure included almost $1 trillion in what is known as discretionary spending (not including Social Security and Medicare, among other "non-discretionary" programs). (The total price tag total also included $143 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most of the funding for those conflicts has thus far come in "emergency" appropriations not outlined in any budget plan.) At this point in its legislative lifecycle, the budget resolution had already been passed by both chambers and then made it out of conference committee. If the two chambers pass differing versions of a measure, what's known as a conference committee is convened to hammer out the differences between the two resolutions and draft a consensus measure, which then must in turn be approved by both the House and Senate. This vote was on setting the rules for debate for the House's consideration of that conference committee report. Democrats lauded the budget resolution as the first step towards turning around what they deemed were the fiscal improprieties of the first six years of Bush's presidency, most of which time the Republicans also controlled both chambers of Congress. Republicans lambasted the plan as evidence of Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility and accused Democrats of a backdoor tax increase. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wanted to offer an amendment to the rule, which would have, in his words, stopped the chamber "from hiding behind a cheap procedural maneuver." Sessions said the rules for debate allowed lawmakers to raise the limit on the amount of public debt the federal government could hold without a formal vote. "This rule allows Members to duck the responsibility of taking a vote on raising a limit on a public debt, a painful but necessary exercise of this chamber's legislative responsibilities," Sessions said. "Because of this rule invented by Democrats, Members who vote for this underlying conference report will also be recorded as voting to raise the public debt. Members need to be aware of this. They need to know exactly what they are voting for." Democrats countered that it was Republicans who were the fiscally irresponsible ones. "This administration and these past Congresses took a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a $9 trillion debt. This Democratic budget, in contrast, reaches balance by 2012, and strictly adheres to PAYGO rules," Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) said. Motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. This time was no exception. All Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, so the motion passed 224-193, and the House moved to approve the rules for debate for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution, thus bringing the resolution to the floor. The measure included a provision to allow the House to raise the amount of public debt the federal government could hold without a separate vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 404 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1427, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Passage: H R 1585 National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1585 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1585 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1585 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1585 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
HR 1585. (Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill), Tierney of Massachusetts amendment to reduce funding for missile defense programs by $1.1 billion/On agreeing to the amendment This was a vote on an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, offered by John Tierney, D-Mass., that would have axed some $1.1 billion in funding for several existing missile defense systems ? about a 20 percent cut. Conceptually, a national missile defense system is intended to shield America from attacks by long-range missiles. But these systems -- dubbed ?Star Wars? when they were first introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 ? have over the years been a favorite target of progressive politicians, many of whom believe that they encourage nuclear proliferation, are outdated, ineffectual and a money sink besides. Tierney said his amendment targeted several high-risk, long-term missile defense systems that he believes do not warrant federal money for many of those reasons. ?This Congress should not continue to acquiesce in the authorization on this deeply flawed system. We have to come to terms with certain stubborn realities and have the courage to change course,? Tierney said. Republicans, along with Ike Skelton, D-Mo. , the chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, sought to preserve the program. Skelton said the underlying bill already shaved $764 million from missile defense systems, and that to cut more could jeopardize America?s defenses. ?This amendment would effectively terminate most, if not all, of the Missile Defense Agency?s longer term research and development programs. Given the dynamic security environment we find ourselves in today, I don?t believe it is prudent to do this,? Skelton said. In the past, Skelton has backed Republicans on rolling out new missile defense systems. He has said he believes they could help fend off missile attacks from North Korea and other rogue states. Many Democrats who opposed the amendment took much the same position, suggesting that while they shared concerns about the efficiency and usefulness of some of the Pentagon?s missile defense programs, the current threat to American security was too imminent to make such a drastic cut. The amendment was defeated on a 299-127 vote. Democrats were split on the amendment (124-105), with Progressives mostly voting yes. Three Republicans also voted yes ? Ron Paul, R-Texas, who supports most efforts to trim government spending; Jimmy Duncan, R-Tenn., who has opposed the administration on some defense issues; and Mike Castle, R-Del., who is one of the most moderate Republicans in the House. Thus, Tierney?s amendment to erase $1.1 billion in funding for missile defense programs was defeated. WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1585 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1585 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585); Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) amendment to prohibit the Bush administration from planning a contingency military operation in Iran/On adoption of the amendment This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing $648.6 billion for the Defense Department for fiscal 2008 that would prohibit the Bush administration from using funds in the bill intended to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to plan military operations in Iran. The language was proposed by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.). President Bush threatened to veto the legislation if the amendment was included. Andrews said that while he believed it was in the "interest of freedom-loving people around the world to deny the present regime in Tehran access to a nuclear weapon," he also said his amendment did not limit the United State's ability to deal with that potential problem. "The amendment I submit raises the issue of the propriety of this coequal branch of our government asserting its proper constitutional authority," Andrews continued. What he was trying to avoid, he said, was military gaming for a conflict with Iran using funds appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The Constitution vests us, as the duly elected representatives of the people, with the authority and responsibility to decide when this country will initiate hostilities in order to serve our national interest absent an emergency or a self-defense situation," Andrews added. "This amendment preserves that emergency authority of the President. It preserves the self-defense authority of the President. But it properly asserts the duly assigned constitutional role of this branch to decide the circumstances under which we should go forward with a major contingency operation," Andrews concluded. Republicans opposed the amendment on the grounds that it inhibited the president's ability to conduct operations in Iraq to defend U.S. interests in that country. Republicans repeated assertions by the administration that Iranian troops have helped the insurgents fight American forces in Iraq. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said that U.S. military commanders have reported that Iran has participated in moving weapons that have been used against U.S. troops. "The idea that we are saying that in this piece of the budget we cannot plan for interdiction of those items, of those weapons that are moving across the border, that we can't plan, for example, for Special Forces operations that we might need to implement or to move into action, to preempt this movement of deadly devices across the border, that we can't plan to extract hostages if they should be taken by Iranian militia or Iranian members of the armed forces is just not practical and it's not reasonable," Hunter continued. Democrats were unable to secure enough support from within their own ranks for the amendment. Although six Republicans supported the language, it was not enough to offset the defection by 29 Democrats. Thus, by a vote of 202 to 216, the House rejected an amendment to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill that would have prohibited the administration from using monies in the bill intended to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to plan for a military conflict with Iran, and the legislation proceeded without the language. WAR & PEACE— Relations with Iran |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation) This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.). The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 359 and 361.) A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party. There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but four voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but nine voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 188 to 221 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation) This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.). A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party. The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 359 and 363.) There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but four voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 178 to 217 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation) This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 361 and 363.) A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party. There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but five voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 186 to 213 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation) This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 359, 361 and 363.) A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party. There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but four voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 184 to 222 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation) This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.). A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party. The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 359, 361 and 363.) There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but eight voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 177 to 219 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 403) of the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/On adoption of the rules package This was the final vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize $648.6 billion in funding, including $141.6 billion in "emergency" spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Defense Department for fiscal 2008. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 50 amendments. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) objected to the rule because of the many Republican amendments the Rules Committee didn't allow to be considered by the full House. He also objected to the procedures the majority Democrats used leading up to the vote. "I am deeply troubled that for the first time, the first time during my tenure in Congress and tenure on the Rules Committee, Members of Congress reported that they were actually prohibited, prohibited from submitting an amendment to the committee after the deadline," Hastings said. Hastings was referring to what are known as second-degree amendments, which are basically amendments to amendments. "These types of amendments by definition cannot be drafted until the text of the original amendment has been seen," Hastings continued. "So let me be clear. The Democrat leadership actually denied Members of Congress the opportunity to have their amendments presented and then denied by the committee because typically amendments that are offered late are denied. But they didn't even have the opportunity to submit them late." Hastings added that he was "disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen to go out of its way to be inconsistent and change the rules and definitions, leaving Members of Congress questioning what rules and norms they should follow." Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) responded: "I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee because he is aware, and anyone who attended that committee meeting would be aware, that certain second-degree amendments were in fact offered by the other side of the aisle and were debated and voted upon in committee." The House adopted the rules for debate on an almost completely party-line vote. All but three Republicans voted against the rules package, and Democrats were unanimous in their support. Thus, by a vote of 229 to 194, the House approved the rules for consideration for legislation to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008, and the House proceeded to debate on amendments approved by the Rules Committee. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 403) of the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and possibility of amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize $648.6 billion in funding, including $141.6 billion in "emergency" spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Defense Department for fiscal 2008. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 50 amendments. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) rose to opposed the rule on the grounds that the Rules Committee did not make in order "many of the amendments that were necessary to address the evisceration of our Missile Defense System and that, Madam Speaker, at a time when our intelligence tells us the North Koreans and the Iranians are continuing to develop dangerous missile capability." Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) responded that the committee considered 135 amendments and allowed 50. She added: "I think it is also important to respond to the claims that missile defense is not funded through this bill. Indeed, that is incorrect. The record should reflect that only in Washington can a program be provided and funded with billions and billions of dollars for numerous decades; and then say, oh, we are suffering. In fact, that is not the case." Republicans also complained about many other specific amendments that were not allowed. "Just for the simple fact that I am in the minority party, the Rules Committee did not allow an amendment which would have given a 9-year-old child from my district access to the death gratuity that her mother wanted her to have when she was killed in Iraq, just for partisan reasons," Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) said. "There are at least 143 cases exactly like this. And to deny a child access to this benefit is simply outrageous." This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but two voted for it, and the motion passed 225-198. Thus, a motion to force a vote on the rules for debate for legislation to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008 passed, and the House proceeded to a final vote on the rules package. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1124 To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/On passage This was the final vote was on legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. House leaders reported that this Intelligence budget was the largest in history. The legislation would authorize increases in the human intelligence budget, including additional training for intelligence agents. The bill would also require that a National Intelligence Estimate on global climate change be submitted to Congress, which many Republicans opposed (see Roll Call 337). Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said he supported the bill because it supported the men and women who are "deployed into harm's way and depend on the military intelligence capabilities authorized by this bill." "It is important for them to achieve their missions," Skelton said. "And this legislation assures continued delivery of our intelligence to our warfighters. It will lead to important improvements in the future." Many Republicans opposed the bill for what they said were cuts to crucial human intelligence programs. Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.) pointed out that the bill would slash funding for "one of our most important intelligence collection functions in the global war on terrorism," the human intelligence programs. "Regardless of your position on the war, we cannot cut a primary intelligence function that is critical to protecting our troops in combat," he said. Support for and opposition against the measure split mostly down party lines. All but six Democrats voted for the bill, and all but five Republicans opposed it. Thus, by a vote of 225 to 197, the House passed a bill authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 that, among other things, would direct increases in the human intelligence budget and require a report on the national security implications of global climate change, and the legislation made its way to the Senate. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Motion to recommit with instructions to increase the CIA's human intelligence budget by $23 million, offset by an equal cut for the National Drug Intelligence Center This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. Proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the motion to recommit would have increased the CIA's human intelligence budget by $23 million, offset by an equal cut for the National Drug Intelligence Center. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. Rogers said that the intelligence bill had some very good points, but the sections that cut human intelligence programs would jeopardize "soldiers in the field in not getting the proper assistance and information that they need." "You know, for a time of war, the priorities of this bill are completely misplaced in critical areas," Rogers said. "The motion to recommit would readjust those priorities by increasing human intelligence funding for the Central Intelligence Agency by $23 million. That money would come from an earmark funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center which a formal oversight report of the House Committee said: 'An expensive and duplicative use of scarce federal drug enforcement resources.'' And the U.S. News & World Report called it a 'boondoggle.'" The motion to recommit would have also directed the Department of Justice inspector general to conduct an audit of the National Drug Intelligence Center to determine if the center was wasteful and duplicative. Rogers said Democrats blocked the audit in committee "with no substantive explanation." House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) chastised Rogers for discussing the classified intelligence budget in public debate. He also outlined substantive problems with Rogers' amendment. He said the program Rogers would cut to offset the cost of an increase to the human intelligence budget "makes valuable contributions to the war on drugs and to homeland security, first and foremost." "This motion is also misleading because the underlying bill provides our intelligence officers everything they need," Reyes said, adding that the underling bill already increased the budget for human intelligence. "It adds funds to the CIA and Defense Department for human intelligence training so that our operators can be more effective. It invests in language training for case officers so they can operate effectively overseas." Reyes also said that the study Rogers sought has already been done. Rogers' motion was rejected. Only one Democrat broke ranks and voted for it, while 16 Republicans voted against it. Thus, on a mostly party-line vote of 181 to 241, the House rejected a Republican attempt to amend the intelligence authorization bill to cut $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center and spend the funds on additional human intelligence operations. Legislation authorizing intelligence spending for fiscal 2008 proceeded without the provision. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) amendment to clarify that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. Proposed by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the amendment would clarify that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted. The impetus behind the amendment was a growing dissatisfaction among lawmakers, Democrats particularly, at the Bush administration's use of wiretapping and other surveillance methods for domestic spying. The administration has argued that FISA doesn't provide the necessary tools to fight terrorism, and a series of news reports in recent years has revealed that the administration has flagrantly disregarded FISA requirements, namely that the government obtain a warrant from a secret court before eavesdropping within the United States on Americans. The administration was working to convince Congress to retroactively expand surveillance authority beyond FISA's boundaries, something Congress would eventually go on to do in August. The basic thrust of this amendment was to reaffirm FISA's primacy in governing domestic surveillance, and its adoption was a setback (albeit a temporary one) to the administration. Schiff said he and Flake's amendment was designed to reign in "the president's unilateral assertion of power with regard to the electronic surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil and reassert that our existing statutes govern the operation of such surveillance." He said that while the president possesses the authority to engage in electronic surveillance of "the enemy" outside the country, Congress possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United States. "The president has argued that the authorization for the use of military force provided him with the authority to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans," Schiff said. "It is hard to believe that any of us contemplated, when we voted to authorize the use of force to root out the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, that we were also voting to nullify FISA." He concluded that if the government can eavesdrop on purely domestic calls between Americans without court approval, there would be no limit to executive power. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) responded that "the sad thing is that the bipartisan leadership of this body, Democrat and Republican, knew for five years this program was going on and did nothing to update the laws or even propose that perhaps this was wrong to do this this way. They remained silent. The failure is in the Congress." Wilson and many Republicans maintained that FISA was broken, as it was no longer able to let the intelligence agencies gather crucial information about "our enemies," nor was it protecting the civil liberties of Americans. For that reason, she said, she couldn't support the amendment, because the law is "outdated, and we are stuck with our heads in the sand in 1970s law. And your amendment insists that we stay there." Twenty-three Republicans broke with party ranks to support the amendment, and only five Democrats opposed it. Thus, on a vote of 245 to 178, the House voted to reaffirm that intelligence agencies had to get a warrant from a secret court in order to spy on Americans within the United States, and legislation authorizing intelligence spending for fiscal 2008 went forward with the provision. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) amendment to limit the number of personnel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the number serving on May 1, 2007 This vote was on an amendment that would limit the number of people working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the number in the office on May 1, 2007. Proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich,) the measure amended legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. The impetus behind Roger's amendment was a growing concern in both parties that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was becoming an additional layer of bureaucracy within the intelligence community rather than the small, agile office Congress intended to coordinate activities among the various agencies that do intelligence work when the office was created by the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Roger's said the office has grown exponentially since its creation "at the expense of analysts and officers in the field, and I think is the wrong direction." I think it's so important that we make this statement to them that enough is enough." Rogers pointed out that those who were brought into the office came out of the field. "They were doing real work, targeting bad guys, identifying, putting them on lists, trying to get our guys to bring them to justice," Rogers said. "What happened then is they disrupted some of those operations, brought those people in, and started tasking back to the people in the field. That's not value-added; it's just not." Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who cosponsored the amendment, said it sent a message to the Bush administration that "we will not give you a blank check with which you could continue to grow a new bureaucracy before we know what you are doing with what you already have. A bigger bureaucracy does not make better intelligence." Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said while he supported the ideas behind the amendment, he thought it would have "unintended consequences." "For example, though the intent of this amendment is to limit the layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, this cap would actually eliminate large numbers of analysts and planners, with the harshest impact falling on the National Counterterrorism Center, which analyzes terrorism information and plans counterterrorism operations," Reyes said. "In addition, this amendment would force the DNI to fire anyone hired between May 1 and the date of the enactment of this bill, preventing the DNI from increasing capacity in priority areas." In the end, the amendment passed with significant Democratic support. Only three Republicans voted against it, and 106 Democrats broke with their party leaders in voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 297 to 122, the House voted to freeze the number of people working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the staffing level as of May 1, 2007, and legislation authorizing spending for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 went forward with the provision. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) amendment to strike the bill's requirement that a national intelligence estimate on global climate change be submitted to Congress This vote was on a Republican amendment to strike language in legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 that would require a national intelligence estimate on global climate change be submitted to Congress. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. House leaders reported that this Intelligence budget was the largest in history. Republicans disagreed with a section in the bill that called upon the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the national security impact of climate change, an action requested by 11 three- and four-star generals. Democrats said the provision was important because, in the words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), "climate change is impacting global security." Republicans had previously tried and failed to prevent the bill from coming to the floor because of their opposition to this section (see Roll Call 324), and this was their last opportunity to remove it from the legislation. Hoekstra said the provision would send the intelligence community back to the "bugs and bunnies" era of the early 1990s when Congress directed the intelligence agencies to focus on "politically correct priorities," such as "to spy on the environment." He said telling the intelligence agencies to move their priorities from radical Islam, North Korea, Syria and Iran to focusing on a National Intelligence Estimate on climate change "sends exactly the wrong message." Democrats said Hoekstra missed the larger point and the interrelatedness of climate change to global security. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said the 11 three- and four-star generals and the American people "are ahead of us on this." "As they noted, the geopolitical effects of global warming are likely to intensify instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world as people fight over access to water and food, creating humanitarian disasters and failed states that facilitate the establishment of terrorist safe havens," Eshoo said. "The intelligence community agrees, and they are already preparing an assessment on how our enemies could use global climate change to degrade our security interests. This NIE will not divert collection assets from other priorities. That's hogwash." Hoekstra's motion was rejected by a near party-line vote of 185 to 230. Twelve Republicans broke with their party to vote against it, and only three Democrats voted for it. Thus, the House rejected a Republican attempt to strip legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies of language requiring a report be submitted to Congress on the national security implications of global climate change, and the fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization moved toward a final vote with the requirement intact. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
Emergency agriculture relief (H.R. 2207)/On passage This was the final vote on emergency aid to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions in many parts of the country, including floods, wildfires and drought. The legislation would provide $4.5 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $1.8 billion in crop disaster assistance and $1.5 billion in livestock assistance, as well as $500 million for wildfire management and suppression. The measure also included $425 million funding for rural schools, $60 million for the California salmon industry and $31 million for a milk subsidy program. The agriculture emergency appropriations bill was originally part of an "emergency" supplemental to fund the Iraq war. President Bush vetoed that legislation because it contained a timeline for withdrawing troops from that conflict. After Bush implied in his veto message that Congressional Democrats didn't have the political wherewithal to pass what he deemed to be an excessive agriculture supplemental separately from the Iraq supplemental, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) announced that the House would do just that. Republicans had accused Democrats of using the politically popular farm funding to "buy" votes for the troop withdrawal measure. The rules for consideration for the now-separate agriculture aid bill called for the measure to be immediately combined with the war supplemental, which passed earlier the same day. (See Roll Calls 265, 327 and 333.) Republican critics of the agriculture aid bill said that it contained excessive non-emergency spending. The White House issued a statement calling it "unnecessary and unwarranted," pointing out that record-high receipts were projected for crops and livestock this year and that federally subsidized crop insurance was already in place to provide a safety net for farmers. The other provisions in the bill were similarly unnecessary, some Republicans said. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the president's answer to the "slow-motion" natural disasters occurring around the country was, "You are on your own." The Agriculture Department declared nearly three-quarters of all U.S. counties as primary or continuous disaster areas over the past two years, DeLauro continued, but no disaster aid has been given besides funding for hurricane relief on the Gulf Coast. Obey said Bush had it "backwards because what the president seemed to suggest is that the only legitimate funding for an emergency appropriation would be for the war in Iraq." "In fact, the war in Iraq should not be funded at all as an emergency appropriation," Obey continued. "After all, it has been around for more than 4 years, despite the President's landing on that aircraft carrier. And the fact is that the President, in order to hide the full cost of the war, asked for that war to be funded in 11 different slices. Those funds should have been provided in regular appropriation bills, not in supplementals." Obey pointed out that the president declared much of the country a natural disaster area, and that it was Congress' obligation to act accordingly, "and that is what we are trying to do." In the end, the agriculture relief package passed with the support of 80 Republicans. Five Democrats voted against it. The final vote was 302 to 120, more than enough to override the president's threatened veto, a point that was made irrelevant by the fact that the legislation was immediately attached to the war supplemental, which Bush also threatened to veto (and that Congress did not have the votes to override). Nonetheless, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to provide federal relief to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions in much of the country, and the legislation moved to the Senate. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
Emergency agriculture relief (H.R. 2207)/Motion to recommit with instructions to offset the spending in the bill with spending cuts or tax increases and leaving open the possibility that the measure could go back to committee indefinitely This vote was on a Republican motion to send an agriculture relief bill back to committee ostensibly to find what are known as "offsets" - spending cuts or tax increases to make the bill "budget-neutral." Democrats accused Republicans of using the motion as a trick to send the legislation back to committee to never return to the House floor for a vote. The legislation was a package of emergency aid to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions in many parts of the country, including floods, wildfires and drought. The bill would provide $4.5 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $1.8 billion in crop disaster assistance and $1.5 billion in livestock assistance, as well as $500 million for wildfire management and suppression. The measure also included $425 million funding for rural schools, $60 million for the California salmon industry and $31 million for a milk subsidy program. Republicans said the measure was excessive and unnecessary, and President Bush threatened to veto it. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) offered the motion to recommit. He said it was a "simple motion to recommit that sends the bill back to committee and instructs the committee to find offsets." No other words in support were offered by Republicans. Democrats accused them of trickery and hypocrisy. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said that the motion was "really quite interesting." "What it says is that the same folks who want to spend $57 billion on tax cuts on millionaires this year, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks who are comfortable with the idea that we have got over a trillion dollars in unfunded tax cuts, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks that want us to spend, no questions asked, at least $600 billion in a sad, sad war in Iraq, these folks have suddenly gotten religion, and they now have a motion that says they would like to see this bill be deficit neutral," Obey said. He continued: "What that means is they are going to ask the farmers of America to bear the full weight of deficit reduction in this bill. This is simply a device to kill the bill because instead of asking that the bill be reported forthwith, it asks that the bill be reported promptly. That, as you know, is code language for killing the bill. I don't think I need to say anything further. "If you want to provide the funding in this bill, you will vote against this motion to recommit. If you care about the farmers, if you care about the western wildfire problem, if you want to meet our obligation to the parts of the country that generally get stiffed and ignored, then you vote against the motion to recommit. If you care about these folks, you will vote against the motion to recommit," Obey concluded. The motion was rejected on a near party-line vote. All but 12 Republicans voted for it, and all but four Democrats voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 184 to 233, Republicans were shut out of their attempts to send the measure back to committee to offset the bill's price tag with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere - what Democrats said was an attempt to kill the bill, as the language in the motion specified no time constraints on when the legislation had to come back to the House floor for a vote - and a measure to provide disaster assistance to farmers made its way to a final vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Hold a Secret Session: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
Defense Department spending bill to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007/On passage This was the final vote on legislation to provide $95 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the Defense Department, primarily to fund the war in Iraq. This war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.) Under the new legislation, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion. Although the bill had many facets, debate primarily focused on the progress - or lack thereof - in Iraq and whether American troops should continue to occupy that country. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) said it was time to end the conflict. "This combat is constitutionally and strategically unjustifiable, operationally poorly executed with regard to armoring and deploying the troops, and politically and diplomatically disastrous," he said. "This war is not making anyone more safer or more free, and it cannot be won militarily," Holt said. "As retired General Odom said, the challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq but how to recover from a strategic mistake, invading Iraq in the first place." Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) questioned whether the funding in the bill had too many strings attached to allow the U.S. military to be effective. "It is like giving a soldier a brand-new uniform and then shackling his foot to an anvil. And that anvil, Mr. Speaker, is politics," Kingston said. "Our soldiers fight wars. They cannot take care of Iraqi politics. And yet this bill puts 17 different stipulations on that funding for our soldiers, to say that if these aren't taken care of, then you lose your funding." The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment. Bush expressed his intension to veto this spending package, as well. The Iraq spending bill is the seventh "emergency" appropriations bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.) The legislation also would fund $6.8 billion for hurricane relief and recovery, $3.3 billion for military health care, and $2.25 billion for homeland security. It would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years as well as provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. In the end, only two Republicans voted for the resolution, joining all but 10 Democrats in passing the $95.5 billion legislation. Thus, by a vote of 221 to 205, the House passed "emergency" appropriations to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as hurricane relief, military health care and homeland security programs, and the measure was sent to the Senate incorporating Democrats' stipulations on the release of the funds. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
Defense Department spending bill to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007/Motion to recommit with instructions to delete the section requiring a second vote to release part of the funds after the president reports to Congress on the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks This vote was on a motion to force an amendment to legislation to provide $95 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the Defense Department, primarily to fund the war in Iraq. The amendment would have deleted the section in the bill requiring a second vote by Congress to release some of the funds after President Bush reported back on the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If a motion to recommit succeeds, the bill goes back to its committee of origin and language is added to reflect the instructions adopted. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) offered the motion. He said the language that would require Bush to report back to Congress with the Iraqi government's progress in meeting 16 specific goals would give Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) the sole authority to introduce a resolution of approval to release the additional funds. Lewis pointed out that Obey could decide not to introduce such a resolution at all. "The authority that this gives the chairman of the committee to introduce or not introduce legislation is unprecedented," Lewis said. "Further, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule [for consideration] under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months." That language, Lewis said, would set a "dangerous" precedent that should be of "great concern to Members on both sides of the aisle." Obey replied that it was time the Bush administration was held accountable. Lewis' motion, he said, would remove the provision that would set aside almost $50 billion pending confirmation by Bush that the Iraqi government has met the 16 benchmarks. The effect of the motion to recommit, Obey maintained, was "to give the president every dollar he wants, no questions asked, no oversight, no review, no nothing." The fencing, as Obey called it, was in his view the only pressure for a policy change in Iraq. "If you vote for this motion, it is an endorsement of the status quo," Obey concluded. This Iraq war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.) Under the new legislation, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion. The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment. On an almost completely party-line vote, the motion to recommit failed. All but three Republicans present voted for it, and all but three Democrats present voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 195 to 229, the House rejected a Republican attempt to force a vote on an amendment that would have deleted a provision in the bill requiring Congress to vote again to release half of the funds only after Bush certified that the Iraqi government had met certain benchmarks. Legislation providing $95.5 billion for the Defense Department to conduct the war in Iraq proceeded with the provision for conditional two-part funding intact. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Holding a Secret Session: MOTION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
To provide for the redeployment and withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment (H.R. 2237)/On passage This vote was on legislation to begin redeploying and withdrawing U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment. The withdrawal would have had to be completed within 180 days of enactment, and the language would have prohibited the Defense Department from increasing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq beyond the number serving there as of Jan. 1, 2007 without a specific congressional authorization. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said the phones were ringing off the hook in her congressional office with constituents calling and demanding an end to the war. "Sadly, the president is dealing with an Iraq that exists only in his imagination," Schakowsky said. "It is time for the president to understand that this House will not endorse a blank check for an endless war. Listen to the mothers of America on this Mother's Day weekend. They are saying, support our children in uniform by bringing them home." Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) responded that even if he were to assume that what critics of the war have said about President Bush lying to start a war in Iraq and that the war really was about oil were true, "we are there now." And to leave, Kingston said, would be disastrous. The "surge," he said, referring to U.S. troop increases in the spring, was working. Despite "a very bleak picture," Kingston continued, "progress is being made." "If you pass this legislation today, you wouldn't just erode that progress. You would sign a death sentence to people like this prime minister and his family. Now, I agree that the Republican Party probably lost the majority in the House because of the war as much as anything else, but for us that is just politics. It is a political death. For the people over there that we are helping, this is real death," Kingston added. Democrats countered that the U.S. troop presence was only exacerbating the civil strife in Iraq. Support for the timetable for withdrawal was strong among Democrats but it wasn't enough to pass the legislation. Two Republicans joined 169 Democrats in voting for the measure, and 59 Democrats opposed it. Thus, by a vote of 171 to 255, the House rejected a bill that would have required a complete pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days of enactment. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
To provide for the redeployment and withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment (H.R. 2237)/Motion to recommit with instructions that language be added stating that the decision to withdraw should be based on protection of members of the armed forces, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. embassy This vote was on whether to force a vote on an amendment to legislation to begin redeploying and withdrawing U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days of enactment. Republicans sought to add language to the bill to state that the determination to withdrawal should be based on a number of factors, including protection of members of the armed forces, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. embassy. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If a motion to recommit succeeds, the bill goes back to its committee of origin and language is added to reflect the instructions adopted. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) offered the motion. He said the legislation would have a "devastating impact on our ability to fight terrorism here and abroad and would have severe security impacts, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and the entire region." Saxton said his motion would "ensure that when we withdraw from Iraq, we do so based on the conditions on the ground." He added that a premature withdrawal could embolden al Qaeda and forces for destabilization in the region, including Iran. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) complained that the minority did not give the majority a chance to review the motion before it was offered, but he said it was immediately apparent to him that its purpose was simply to prevent lawmakers from voting on the underlying bill. "It is designed to gut the bill by adding two additional conditions that would enable our troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely," Obey said. "Those conditions make reference to the regional security of the Middle East and the national security interest of the United States. That language is so broad that virtually any deployment of any armed force could be justified under that language." Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) added that the motion was "yet another cynical attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that I think both Democrats and Republicans want to deal with, and that is whether or not we should have a timetable for withdrawal and redeployment from Iraq." All but two Republicans voted to send the spending bill back to committee with specific directions to include the language, but Democrats were near unanimous in their opposition; only 13 Democrats voted for it. The motion to recommit with instructions failed by a vote of 210 to 218, and the House thus rejected a provision that would have included conditions for troop redeployment in legislation to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment. A bill to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country proceeded without amendment. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) motion to proceed into closed session to discuss classified provisions tucked into the legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale This vote was on a motion by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to move the House into a secret session with the purpose of discussing earmarks in the fiscal 2008 Intelligence authorization bill. Earmarks are provisions tucked into legislation at the behest of individual lawmakers that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. House leaders reported that this Intelligence budget was the largest in history. Flake was upset because the text of the earmarks included in the Intelligence bill were not made available to lawmakers 72 hours in advance of the legislation coming to the floor, as required by a House rule adopted at the beginning of this Congress. "We said that if you are going to have an earmark in a bill, or in a report, that you need to state that you do not have a financial interest in that earmark, and then you need to submit that earmark, or it has to be submitted with the report so that Members can actually see that and see that there is no financial interest, see if it has merit or warrant," Flake said. "This process is not being followed here." Flake said he was initially told there were no earmarks in the legislation, only later to find out there was a list but it wasn't available until after the deadline to submit amendments to the bill - the only way a lawmaker could challenge a particular earmark. "We cannot continue to do business like this," Flake said. "Members need not be reminded that Duke Cunningham now sits in prison because of earmarks he largely got in the intelligence process, in the Intelligence Committee. We cannot allow that to happen again." Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham was sentence to eight years in prison for bribery and corruption. "And then we have the problem here in open session where you can't even challenge the earmark and talk about what the earmark is actually about because you are in open session and you might be talking about classified things," Flake said. Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the Government Printing Office made an error in omitting the earmarks from the published version of the bill. "Be that as it may, this committee followed the requirements of the House for each Member receiving an earmark to certify that neither he or she nor his or her spouse would benefit financially from any kind of action," Reyes said. "We complied with all the requirements, all the rules, and all the regulations. Unsatisfied, Flake moved the House to be cleared of everyone except lawmakers. Republicans were unanimous in their support for the motion, and all but nine Democrats were opposed. Thus, on a mostly party-line vote of 207 to 217, the House rejected a motion to move the House into secret session to discuss classified earmarks, and the Intelligence authorization moved towards a final vote with the earmarks intact. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 387) for two fiscal 2007 "emergency" supplemental spending bills and legislation to require a withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 2206, H.R. 2237, H.R. 2207)/On adoption of the rules package This was the final vote on the rules for debate for a series of bills to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007, a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq as well as $4.5 billion for agriculture relief. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments can be offered on the House floor. This Iraq war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.) The original bill also contained disaster relief for farmers following record droughts and other severe weather in many parts of the country. This time around, House appropriators separated the two spending bills and the Iraq pullout language into three separate measures. The rules of consideration would provide that the three measures be combined into one piece of legislation after they were adopted individually. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said he made the decision to separate the measures after Republicans had criticized Democrats for including the farm relief in the original war-spending supplemental as a way to "buy" votes for the troop-withdrawal provisions. "The president seemed to suggest in his veto message that we didn't have the courage to deal with the agriculture and other related issues alone, that we had to slip them in, so to speak, in the Iraq bill," Obey said. "And frankly, that got my dander up." Under the this plan, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion. The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment. Bush expressed his intension to veto this spending package, as well. The Iraq spending bill is the seventh "emergency" appropriations bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.) Republicans called the series of bills a "charade" and complained about the closed process under which they were going to be brought to the House floor. "First they brought up a bill that they knew the President would veto. Then they called for a veto override that they knew would fail. And today we are once again considering the same defeatist policy that failed in the first two rounds plus, plus, Mr. Speaker, a call for redeployment, basically withdrawal, within 90 days, to begin withdrawal within 90 days," Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) said. "Kicking the pullout vote a few months down the road is not a solution." Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said she found it "striking" that for all four years the Iraq war has been funded by supplemental appropriations measures. "From the beginning the White House has refused to plan ahead. Instead it has counted on Congress to accept its demands and pass one supplemental bill and then another time and time again, with no end in sight and no accountability required in return," Slaughter said. "The American people have rejected a House that blindly accepts the administration's predictions about Iraq, all the while ceding its role in deciding matters of war and peace, the most solemn responsibility given to the Congress." On an almost completely party-line vote, the House adopted the rules of consideration for the three measures. Only one Republican broke ranks to support it, and five Democrats crossed party lines to vote against it. Thus, by a vote of 219 to 199, the House approved the rules of debate for three pieces of legislation that would later be combined into one bill: supplemental appropriations for the Iraq war, a timeline for the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and emergency funding for farming relief. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 387) for two fiscal 2007 "emergency" supplemental spending bills and legislation to require a withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 2206, H.R. 2237, H.R. 2207)/Motion to order the previous question (ending debate and preventing amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate for a series of bills to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007, a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq as well as $4.5 billion for agriculture relief. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments can be offered on the House floor. This Iraq war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.) The original bill also contained disaster relief for farmers following record droughts and other severe weather in many parts of the country. This time around, House appropriators separated the two spending bills (for war spending and agriculture relief) and the Iraq pullout language into three separate measures. The rules of consideration would provide that the three measures be combined into one piece of legislation after they were adopted individually. Under the this plan, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July 2007 to release the remaining $52.8 billion. The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment. Bush expressed his intension to veto this spending package, as well. The Iraq spending bill is the seventh "emergency" appropriations bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.) Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) said Congress had an obligation to have a "serious, substantive debate to supply our troops with the funds they need to do their job," but that the Democrats "simply scheduled one more empty political vote under yet another totally closed process." "And we all know, under both Democrats and Republicans, the tradition is that when it comes to wartime supplementals, they be considered under an open amendment process, but that's been thrown out the door," Dreier said. Democrats said it was time for accountability. "My fellow Democrats and I promised a new way forward," Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said. "And so the first funding bill that we delivered to the president reconciled our party's conscience with the brutal realities the war presented to us, realities that we, unlike some in the administration, are willing to acknowledge. "And we said the war would not go on forever, that it must have an end, not an irresponsible end but an end," Slaughter continued. "The President rejected our offer out of hand. He told us that while he would never compromise, we had to. Mr. Speaker, stubbornness is not the same as strength." If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but three Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 222 to 201. Thus, on a party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for three pieces of legislation to fund the Iraq war, to require a timeline for the withdrawal of combat troops and to provide relief for farmers impacted by severe weather. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
Providing consideration for the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Adoption of the rules package This was the final vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the legislation represented the largest budget for intelligence spending in history. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 10 amendments, almost half of which were offered by Republicans. Republicans also opposed the rules package because of their discontent with a provision in the bill itself that would request that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security impact of global climate change, an action requested by 11 three- and four-star generals. Democrats said the provision was important, in the words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), because "climate change is impacting global security." "Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of terrorist cells," Hastings said. "If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training simulations." Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said that the provision eroded what otherwise would have been bipartisan support for the bill. He said it was unwise to direct the intelligence community's "limited resources" to an assessment "on theoretical risks from global warming." The rules for debate was adopted on a completely party-line vote. All Republicans present voted against the resolution, and all Democrats present voted to approve it. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 198, the House adopted the rules for consideration for legislation to authorize a classified amount for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 and made way for the legislation to be brought to the House floor for debate, amendment and a final up-or-down vote. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
Providing consideration for the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Motion to order the previous question (ending debate and preventing amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the legislation represented the largest budget for intelligence spending in history. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a up-or-down vote on the resolution under consideration. To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 10 amendments, almost half of which were offered by Republicans. Republicans also opposed the rules package because of their discontent with a provision in the bill itself that would request that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security impact of climate change, an action requested by 11 three- and four-star generals. Democrats said the provision was important because, in the words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), "climate change is impacting global security." "Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of terrorist cells," Hastings said. "If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training simulations." Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said that the provision eroded what otherwise would have been bipartisan support for the bill. He said it was unwise to direct the intelligence community's "limited resources" to an assessment "on theoretical risks from global warming." If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but one Democrat present voted for it, and the motion passed 223 to 199. Thus, on a party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would authorize a classified sum for intelligence spending for fiscal 2008. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
Increasing opportunities for participation by small business in federal contracting (H.R. 1873)/Motion to recommit with instructions to allow small businesses to be considered "economically disadvantaged" if they can demonstrate they are adversely affected by expiring tax incentives This vote was a Republican attempt to force an amendment to legislation aiming to increase the opportunities for participation by small businesses in federal contracting. Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) motioned to send the bill back to the Small Business Committee with instructions that it be amended to allow any small businesses that could demonstrate that they would be adversely affected by expiring tax incentives to be considered "economically disadvantaged" and thus better able to compete for federal contracts. The legislation to which English was seeking to amend would limit the ability of federal agencies to bundle small projects into large contracts and require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to take steps to reduce incorrect entries in the government's contractor registry that currently over-report the number of small businesses awarded federal contracts. Despite bipartisan support for the legislation, Republicans were upset at what they characterized as being shut out of the amendment process. They said not even one Republican amendment was made in order by the Rules Committee (see Roll Call 312). So in this case, the motion to recommit with instructions was the Republican's only chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. A motion to recommit is usually a symbolic vote, however, as the minority rarely wins. English said his amendment was timely because of the inclusion of what Republicans deemed the largest tax increase in American history in the fiscal 2008 budget resolution proposed by Democrats (see Roll Call 307). In actuality, the "tax increase" Republicans referred to was the omission in the House's version of the budget resolution a plan to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 that the then-Republican-led Congress had originally designed to expire at the end of the decade so as to obscure their true long-term cost. During debate of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution, Democrats promised to extend the tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses while letting many that benefit only wealthy individuals and large corporations to expire. Nonetheless, the Democrats engaged in a little budget gimmickry of their own by not including the tax cuts they planned to extend in the 2008 budget resolution, allowing them to make the federal budget appear more balanced than it will likely end up being if those tax cuts are extended without cutting federal spending or increasing taxes elsewhere. For his part, English said that he was "concerned that if we see a change in our tax policies on this scale, that it is going to have a huge impact on small businesses." English was particularly concerned with a tax provision known as Section 179, which allows small businesses to write off their capital investments as business expenses. "All this motion to recommit is seeking to do is to give small businesses a tool to enhance their success in the marketplace, despite the potential for being hammered by a Brobdingnagian set of tax increases required by the budget that we are going to be facing," English continued. But Democrats said the argument was nonsense. "I would just like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I am a little confused, because if he cares so much about extending section 179, where was he last week when we voted to override the veto of the President where section 179 was part of it?" asked Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.). Velazquez went on to question the Republicans' commitment to entrepreneurship. "This Congress just sent a bill to the President cutting taxes for small businesses. While the president [signed] a bill for tax breaks for large companies, the president just vetoed the one that helped small businesses, like section 179; not only extending section 179, but expanding section 179," Velazquez said. "Republicans passed $2 trillion in tax cuts, yet small business priorities were never taken care of." On an almost completely party-line vote, the House rejected the motion to recommit. Republicans were unanimous in their support, while all but 11 Democrats voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 209 to 216, the motion to recommit failed, and a bill aiming to increase the opportunities for participation by small businesses in federal contracting moved towards a final vote without attaching an amendment that would have allowed small businesses that could demonstrate that they are adversely affected by expiring tax incentives to be considered "economically disadvantaged." FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/On passage This was the final vote on legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal 2008. The bill would authorize $300 million between fiscal 2008 and 2010 for grants to states to prevent terrorists or other individuals from fraudulently obtaining and using state-issued identification cards and to develop more secure state-issued documents. The measure would require the agency to conduct a comprehensive homeland security review. Furthermore, it would eliminate the department's authority to establish a unique personnel management system that prevents employees from being covered by workplace laws afforded to other federal workers. The last provision was the most controversial, and President Bush threatened to veto the legislation over its inclusion. Republicans said that DHS's personnel system, unique in the federal government, was necessary to give the executive branch the necessary "flexibilities" to manage the country's security. Democrats said that the system, which as been held up in federal court since the department's creation several years ago, only undermined worker morale and was an unnecessary elimination of the rights normally afforded federal workers. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the bill contained "strong accountability measures aimed at strengthening and streamlining management of the Department of Homeland Security, which has struggled with its management challenges; and it includes provisions to improve information sharing, to enhance bioterrorism preparedness and to eliminate the Department's authority to establish its own personnel management system." Many Republicans supported the bill until the inclusion of what's known as the manager's amendment, a package of changes that modified the bill after it passed out of the Homeland Security Committee (see Roll Call 314). Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) said although she was "cynical about the campaign promises made by the other side to implement the remaining 9/11 Commission reforms, I never dreamed that the American people would be betrayed the way I believe they are today." She said the majority of lawmakers on the Homeland Security Committee "rolled over and played dead, letting their other committee counterparts in the House pick this bill clean of many good security measures in a manager's amendment that will strip them out and gut the bill." Among the provisions stripped from the original bill when the House adopted the manager's amendment was language that would have required employers at critical infrastructure sites to verify Social Security numbers of their employees before hiring them. "Do you know why constituents all around the Nation should be outraged?" Brown-Waite asked. "Because 2 years ago, a power plant in Florida unknowingly had a painting contractor who hired illegal aliens. Several of them had pending criminal charges and had been deported multiple times." As a fusion of many agencies previously under the oversight of multiple committees and subcommittees in the House, the Department of Homeland Security has been plagued by bureaucratic turf wars since its inception - critics say to the detriment of the department and Congress' stated goal in its creation: national security. It is those influences to which Brown-Waite referred. Despite protests from many Republicans, the legislation passed easily. Seventy-three Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting for the bill. Thus, on a final vote of 296 to 126, the House passed legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 2008, including provisions that would prevent the agency from implementing a personnel system that would deny its workers the civil service protections afforded to other federal employees. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Motion to recommit with instructions to authorize the agency to deploy a system to perform risk assessments of people entering the United States This vote represented a Republican attempt to force an amendment to legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal 2008. The motion was to send the bill back committee with instructions to add language authorizing DHS to deploy the Automated Targeting System (ATS-P) at the border to collect information and perform risk assessments of people entering the country. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It's usually a symbolic vote, as the minority rarely wins. The Democrats almost always failed to pass motions to recommit under more than a decade of Republican rule in the House. But increasingly Republicans have been winning motions to recommit. When that happens, the bill is sent back to committee with instructions to include the amendment outlined in the motion, then the bill is immediately sent back to the House floor, where the change is agreed to by a separate voice vote. Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.) made the motion to recommit. He said if Congress "truly serious" about implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, then the motion would be adopted. "The 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to develop a better border security system," Dent said. "The bottom line here is that ATS-P, after factoring in the available information, indicates to the Customs and Border Protection [CBP] officer whether an international traveler should be flagged for additional screening or questioning. That CBP officer retains the discretion to do with that information as he or she pleases. But by giving advance notice of an investigatory lead, ATS-P allows the officer and the agency to operate more effectively, to engage in screening that is risk-based." Democrats opposed the implementation of the program on privacy grounds. Furthermore, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said that it would detract personnel and resources from another border security program, called US-VISIT, not yet fully implemented and "put our government at further risk." "What we need to do is to implement US-VISIT, integrate it with the new technology plan that is about to be brought online," Lofgren said. "It will be a dreadful mistake for the Congress to defer a Department that is not terrifically functional as is from this vital mission by creating still another program that will not actually do its job." Customs and Border Patrol recently filed a Privacy Act notice informing the public that the agency had been utilizing the Automated Targeting System for 5 years without public disclosure. Many Democrats have called upon the agency, which operates under DHS, to reevaluate privacy concerns regarding the program. As of this vote, the agency had yet to answer the Democrats' questions about the programs' operations and data collection. Nonetheless, Republicans found 66 Democrats to join them in their motion to recommit, which passed easily. Republicans were unanimous in their support, and the remaining 160 Democrats present voted against the motion. Thus, by a vote of 264 to 160, the House forced an amendment to a bill authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 that would authorize DHS to deploy a border-security system that would assign "risk assessment" scores to individuals entering the United States. The legislation proceeded toward a final vote with this amendment now incorporated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Revote on the manager's amendment This was a revote on a series of technical and substantial changes to legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department (DHS) for fiscal 2008 that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 314) by the Committee of the Whole. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100, as long as there are no vacancies) The amendment packaged, known as a "manager's amendment" or "chairman's mark," was offered by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). A manager's amendment is usually offered by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction and represents a series of changes to the bill after it has been passed out of committee and before it comes before the full House. Republicans were particularly incensed that the manager's amendment, which was adopted in the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 216 to 209, omitted "sense of Congress" language that the House and Senate each should have a single point of homeland security oversight, a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. The language was nonbinding, but it was nonetheless stripped from the bill by the manager's amendment. "Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said. In addition, the manager's amendment also struck $1.6 billion that the original version of the bill would have authorized for the Secret Service, established new criminal penalties for maritime smuggling of illegal immigrants and required contractors to certify to DHS whether they are delinquent on their federal taxes. Thompson's amendment package also added language requiring the integration of two registered traveler programs and mandated a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on law-enforcement retirement systems. GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the manager's amendment was simply a way to work out necessary changes to the bill. On an almost total party-line vote, the House affirmed its previous vote. All but three Republicans voted against it, and all but 16 Democrats voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 212 to 209, the House re-approved the manager's amendment for legislation authorizing $39.8 billion in funding the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008, and the bill was then brought up for consideration in an amended form. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Manager's amendment This vote was on a series of technical and substantial changes to legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department (DHS) for fiscal 2008. The amendment struck $1.6 billion that the original version of the bill would have authorized for the Secret Service, established new criminal penalties for maritime smuggling of illegal immigrants and required contractors to certify to DHS whether they are delinquent on their federal taxes. The amendment package also added language requiring the integration of two registered traveler programs and mandated a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on law-enforcement retirement systems. GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) offered the amendment package, known as a "manager's amendment." A manager's amendment is usually offered by the committee chairman and represents a series of changes to the bill after it has been passed out of committee and before it comes before the full House. It is often referred to as the chairman's "mark." Republicans opposed the manager's amendment because they said it would undo the bipartisan effort that created the legislation in committee. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that he supported the bill when it was in committee, but opposed the new version of the bill because of the manager's amendment. "Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions," King said. "And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House," King continued. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the manager's amendment was simply a way to work out necessary changes to the bill. On an almost total party-line vote, the House adopted the rules package. All but four Republicans voted against it, and all but 17 Democrats voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 216 to 209, the House approved the manager's amendment for legislation authorizing $39.8 billion in funding the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008, making way for the bill to be brought up for consideration in an amended form. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
Providing for the consideration (H. Res. 383) of legislation to increase opportunities for participation by small business in federal contracting (H.R. 1873)/On adoption of the rule This was the final vote on the rules for debate on a bill aiming to increase participation by small businesses in federal contracting. The legislation would limit the ability of federal agencies to bundle small projects into large contracts and require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to take steps to reduce incorrect entries in the government's contractor registry. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. Since 1953, with the enactment of the Small Business Act, Congress declared as the policy of the federal government to promote small businesses and ensure that a "fair proportion" of federal contracts go to small businesses. The almost 26 million small businesses in the United States employ over half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll, yet small businesses in 2006 won just over a fifth of federal contracts, and even that figure is believed to be a overestimate given accounting maneuvers by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to inflate the figure. Yet even with the dubious accounting, SBA has failed to meet its goal of 23 percent of federal contracts going to small businesses for the past six years. The legislation aims to remedy the shortcomings by preventing SBA from "bundling," the practice of combining two or more smaller contracts into a single, larger package whose scope is out of reach for many small businesses. The bill would also require the federal government to more accurately report the number of small businesses awarded federal contracts and prevent the agency from counting contracts awarded to larger companies in its small business contracting goals. Despite bipartisan support for the legislation, Republicans were upset at what they characterized as being shut out of the amendment process. They said not even one Republican amendment was made in order by the Rules Committee. Republicans believed that several changes to the bill included in what's known as a manager's amendment (which would be automatically adopted with the rules package) would harm small businesses. A manager's amendment is proposed by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction and outlines both technical and substantial changes to the legislation after it is passed out of committee. "So I think the question is begged, how can the majority claim to be fostering an open legislative process when it totally shuts out the minority?" asked Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). Democrats said that although no Republican amendments by themselves were made in order by the Rules Committee, some bipartisan amendments were. "So to say that no Republican suggestions were made in order was simply not totally accurate," Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) said. "We believe that this is, in fact, a very good use of the time of the Members of this House." Diaz-Balart responded that he found it "quite interesting to see that now it is important for the minority to pair with members from the majority party in order to be considered, that pairing with someone from the other side makes the denial of amendments to all Republican amendments apparently fair." Cardoza shot back that in the last two years under Republican control of the House, the Rules Committee reported a "grand total" of three open rules (with the exception of spending bills), meaning that only in these three cases had all amendments had been allowed. In the first four months of Democratic control, Cardoza said, the majority has already allowed seven open rules. "Say what you want, we have already had a fairer and far more open process than happened in just the last two years of the prior majority's rule, when their party ran this place," Cardoza concluded. The partisan rhetoric was reflected in the total conformity of each party in voting on the rules package. All 197 Republicans present opposed it, and all 223 Democrats present voted for it. Thus, the House approved the rules of consideration for a bill aiming to increase the participation of small businesses in the federal contracting process, and the legislation was brought up for debate, amendment and an up-or-down vote on the House floor. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Lobbying Reform & Government Transparency |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 382) of legislation to authorize $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/On adoption of the rule This was the final vote on the rules for consideration for a bill to authorize $39.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said that Democrats did allow several amendments and that he looked "forward to an active debate and the opportunity to present my manager's amendment." A manager's amendment is offered by the committee chairman and can be comprised of technical amendments or changes of a more substantial nature (or some combination thereof). Republicans opposed the manager's amendment because they said it would undo the bipartisan effort that created the legislation in committee. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that he supported the bill when it was in committee, but opposed the rule and the new version of the bill because of the manager's amendment. "Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions," King said. "And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House," King continued. He said that was just one of many significant provisions stripped from the bill by the manager's amendment. The rules of consideration automatically stipulated for the adoption of the manager's amendment, meaning that a vote for the rules package was also a vote to adopt the manager's amendment. The structured rule prevented Republicans from offering amendments to that and other provisions they wished to see changed. On an almost total party-line vote, the House adopted the rules package. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and all but one Democrat voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 222 to 197, the House approved the rules for consideration for legislation authorizing $39.8 billion in funding the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008, making way for the bill to come to the House floor for debate, amendment and a final vote. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 382) of legislation to authorize $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and prevent amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize $39.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. Many Republicans were upset over a provision in the legislation that would scrap the Homeland Security Department's current personnel system, whereby employees are effectively excluded from the civil service protections afforded to other federal workers. President Bush threatened to veto the measure over the provision, arguing that it would take away the agency's "flexibilities" in managing employees. "This bill gets at the heart of the management problems within the Department," Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said. "As we all know, the Department was created by combining the work of 22 separate agencies. This process of integration has had many, many challenges, poor communication between agencies, a lack of qualified management, unusually high turnover of senior personnel." Democrats said the previous Republican-controlled Congress made the problems worse by not passing an authorization bill for fiscal 2007 (and instead funding the agency without a separate bill fine-tuning its operations). Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) responded that Democrats had manipulated the process by attempting to undo what had been a bipartisan bill to emerge out of the Homeland Security committee with what's known as a manager's amendment that Diaz-Balart said would significantly alter the bill. A manager's amendment is a package of changes to legislation by the chairman of the committee to modify the original bill before it is taken up by the full House. "Most of the provisions stricken by the manager's amendment had become part of the bill through Republican amendments in the committee process," Diaz-Balart said. He pointed out two changes he said were most egregious. The first would strike post-employment lobbying restrictions that would have ensured that department employees could not lobby any part of the agency for a year after their departures. The second provision would strike nonbinding language calling for the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish a single point of oversight of homeland security in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. "Now, that is one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and precisely it is one that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle ran on in the elections, the promise to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations," Diaz-Balart said. "Yet here they have an opportunity to follow through on their campaign promise, but, instead, they strike the provision from the bill through the manager's amendment. And they don't even allow for the provision to be debated in the form of an amendment on the floor." The rules of consideration automatically stipulated for the adoption of the manager's amendment, meaning that a vote for the rules package was also a vote to adopt the manager's amendment. The structured rule prevented Republicans from offering amendments to provisions they wished to see changed unless the Rules Committee had pre-approved them. "The Rules Committee had the opportunity to allow an open rule on this bill, but the suggestion that we do so, that we come forth with an open rule, was voted down by the majority on the Rules Committee," Diaz-Balart said. "Instead, they decided to report out a restrictive rule, thereby shutting out Members who had worked diligently to prepare their amendments." If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but three Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 217-199. Thus, on a party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would authorize $39.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 2008. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
Recognizing the suffering and loyalty of residents of Guam during World War II Loyalty (H.R. 1595)/On passage This vote was on adoption of legislation to recognize the suffering and loyalty of the Guam residents during World War II and the Japanese occupation. The bill would direct the Treasury Department to make payments to those who were killed, injured, raped, forced into labor or interned or to their survivors. The measure was taken up by a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, basically a time-saving method used for relatively non-controversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure is unamendable and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. The bill was not without controversy, however. Many Republicans opposed it on grounds that Guam residents had already been adequately compensated for their suffering during World War II. Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) said the bill gives parity to Guam after 63 years of "inequity and injustice." "The question we must ask ourselves before this vote today is, will we ignore history? Will we be deaf to the testimonials of Guam's liberators, our U.S. servicemen, who spoke about Guam's patriotism in the face of enemy occupation? Will we vote against inequity for people who aided our military to take Guam back from the enemy, who greeted our military with tattered rags made into American flags?" Christensen asked. Two federal commissions, one in 1947 and the other in 2004, reported to Congress that the people of Guam have not been made whole despite efforts to rehabilitate the island after Japanese occupation. Guam became an unincorporated territory of the United States in 1948. The federal commissions documented public executions by beheading, rapes and torture during the Japanese wartime occupation and both recommended that the United States make additional reparations. During the occupation, 22,000 American nationals were interned in camps on the island in the Western Pacific. No Republicans spoke against the measure, but Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) alluded to their opposition: "Mr. Speaker, it has been said among some of the critics of this legislation, saying that the people of Guam were properly compensated already. The way the whole thing has been presented, the procedures that were followed and the war claims that were made for the U.S. citizens left out the people of Guam. For some reason or another, I think our colleagues need to understand this a little more clearly." In the end, 66 Republicans joined all but two Democrats in supporting the legislation. Thus, by a final vote of 288 to 133, the House sustained the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill under suspension of the rules, thereby voting to direct the Treasury Department to make payments to residents of Guam who were killed, injured, raped, forced into labor or interned under Japanese occupation during World War II, or to their survivors. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
Five-year budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) motion to instruct conferees to reject the revenue levels set in the House budget resolution, accommodate the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and prohibit the use of the Social Security trust fund to finance other government programs This vote was on a Republican motion to instruct House representatives on a joint House-Senate conference committee meeting to iron out the differences between the two chambers' fiscal 2008 budget resolutions. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) moved to instruct the conferees to include language in the final report that would reject the revenue levels set in the House budget resolution and insist on the revenue projections outlined in the Senate's version, which provided for the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts set to expire in 2010. The motion would also insist that the conference report mandate that the Social Security trust fund not be used to finance other government spending. The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced. A motion to instruct conferees is a way for the House to go on record outlining how the chamber wants its representatives to negotiate a compromise measure. It carries heavy weight in the conference committee because the final version of the resolution that emerges from those discussions has to go back to each chamber for approval. Among the differences between the chambers was the total fiscal 2008 discretionary spending (which excludes Medicare and Social Security funding), which the House's version set at $956 billion and the Senate wanted to see lowered by $7 billion. (The House's figure was also $23 billion more than President Bush requested.) Republicans said that the House's version of the budget plan would amount to the biggest tax increase in American history. What they were referring to was the budgetary treatment of future actions to renew tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which the House's resolution didn't account for. In its version of the resolution, the Senate went on record in supporting the extension of some of those tax cuts by financing their costs with expected surpluses. The House outlined its support for the extension of certain tax breaks less formally, drawing Republican criticism. Because the budget resolution is not binding, however, the debate essentially amounted to what sort of political statement Congress would make on the extension of the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010. (The sun-setting provision was originally put in place, at least in part, to mask their huge budgetary consequences at the time of enactment.) Republicans didn't endorse the budget put forth by either chamber, but they found the Senate's version more agreeable. Republicans said that the House plan amounted to a tax increase. House Democrats said they placed a higher priority on balancing the budget in five years while not cutting spending, and accused Republicans of running up the national debt since Bush took office, and they promised to extend certain middle-class tax credits, but those tax provisions were not included in the formal budget put forth by the House. Ryan said his motion reflected "a very simple up or down choice: One, rejecting the largest tax increase in our nation's history, which is contained in the House budget; two, insisting on the lowest possible level of taxes available in the budget conference; and three, stopping the raid on Social Security's cash surpluses." He went on to add that both chambers' versions of the budget "call for historic tax increases, and we in the minority can't do anything to prevent that," but he hoped with this vote to "at least minimize the damage that these tax hikes will bring." Budget Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said independent, third-party groups such as the Concord Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as well as the Brookings Institution stated unequivocally that the budget resolution neither called for nor required a tax increase. "We have included in the budget resolution not one place, but twice, in different parts of the resolution, our wholehearted endorsement, our commitment, our pledge, our determination to see that these middle-income tax cuts are preserved and enacted and carried forward when they expire per their terms," Spratt said. "The budget resolution does not cause them to expire. They were designed to expire, written to expire when they were offered and passed. At that particular time, that was part of the provision." Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) added that he found it ironic that Republicans were talking about fiscal responsibility when for "12 consecutive years of ironclad Republican control they wrote all the fiscal rules, wrote the budgets, wrote the tax policy ... [and] it's a pretty sorry record of fiscal irresponsibility." Blumenauer added that there wasn't "that great a difference of opinion" between Ryan's motion (which would essentially endorse a budget resolution closer to the Senate's) and the House-passed budget. "We are, in fact, going to be able to meet the objectives. We are working hard in our budget to make sure that we deal meaningfully with tax relief for those who need it," he added. One way or another, Democrats were all but assured of getting their way because they held the upper hand in the conference committee because of their majorities in both chambers. Despite their comments, however, both Blumenauer and Spratt ended up voting for Ryan's motion. Only 57 Democrats opposed the motion to instruct, and Republicans were unanimous in their support for it. By and large the opposition came from the House's most progressive lawmakers, although it was certainly not a homogenous group. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), who voted against the motion, said it violated the most fundamental concept of pay-as-you-go spending (PAYGO), under which tax cuts and spending increases have to be off set by revenue increases elsewhere in the budget. He said Republicans threw PAYGO out the window when President Bush took control of the executive branch in 2001, after previous Congresses had climbed out of deficits into surpluses with fiscal responsibility and adherence to PAYGO principles. "Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a very simple concept. If you are going to increase spending, you pay for it. If you are going to cut taxes, you pay for it. You don't go into the ditch. If you have a tax cut, you have to pay for it either with increases of other taxes or spending cuts to pay for it. If you have spending increases, you have to pay for it with cutting spending somewhere else or increasing taxes to pay for it," Scott said, adding "we got out of the ditch with fiscal responsibility, and as soon as 2001 came along, you let PAYGO expire, passed tax cuts that we couldn't afford and put us right back into the ditch." Scott said Ryan's motion assumed "$250 billion in cuts that we are not going to make." "The fact is that the only way the Republican budget makes any sense is if you have $250 billion in cuts, mostly in Medicare and Medicaid, at a time when we can't even afford the cuts that are already in effect," Scott continued. "What are your priorities? Tax cuts that we can't afford at a time when we need to cover children? We can't even afford the Medicaid program we have got now." Three-quarters of Democrats joined all Republicans present in passing Ryan's motion to instruct House negotiators to reject portions of the House-passed budget resolution in the chamber's negotiations with the Senate on a budget resolution for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2013. Most significantly, the motion to instruct conferees rejected the revenue levels set in the House budget resolution and insisted on the revenue projections outlined in the Senate's version, which provided for the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts set to expire in 2010. The final vote was 364 to 57. The House had originally not included the extension of those tax cuts in its five-year budget plan, and this vote represented a rejection of that decision. Although the motion to instruct conferees is not binding, it has a weighty impact on negotiations between the chambers and reflects the House's consensus on how the two chambers should iron out differences in creating a compromise budget. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
Five-year budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/On passage This vote was on adoption of a House-Senate budget resolution for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2013. The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced. This vote represented the House's endorsement of its version of the budget resolution before the chamber sent its representatives to a conference committee to iron out differences between the two chambers' versions. During three of the past five years of Republican control of Congress, one or both chambers failed to pass the budget resolution and the spending process proceeded without one. In the previous vote (see Roll Call 306), the House moved to take up consideration of the Senate's version of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution and then automatically amend it with the text of the House resolution. This vote then reflected the House's insistence on its budget numbers when House and Senate negotiators met to decide on a compromise plan. That resolution would then need to be sent back to each chamber for its approval in order for the resolution to be considered adopted. Among the differences between the chambers was the total fiscal 2008 discretionary spending (which excludes Medicare and Social Security funding), which the House's version set at $956 billion and the Senate wanted to see lowered by $7 billion. (The House's figure was also $23 billion more than President Bush requested.) The House's version called for $145.2 billion for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would assume $503.8 billion for defense discretionary spending, not counting the $145.2 billion war funding. Non-defense discretionary spending would be set at $451.1 billion. The resolution would also direct the Education and Labor Committee to find a total of $75 million in spending cuts for fiscal 2007 through 2012. Republicans said that the budget plan would amount to the biggest tax increase in American history. What they were referring to was the budgetary treatment of future actions to renew tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which the House's resolution didn't budget for. Because the budget resolution is not binding, however, the debate essentially amounted to what sort of political statement Congress would make on the extension of the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010. (The sun-setting provision was originally put in place, at least in part, to mask their huge budgetary consequences at the time of enactment.) In its version of the resolution, the Senate went on record in supporting the extension of some of those tax cuts by financing their costs with expected surpluses. The House outlined its support for the extension of certain tax breaks less formally, drawing Republican criticism. Democrats maintained that the resolution promised to extend the child-tax credit, the so-called marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, the research and development tax credit and the education of state and local sales taxes, but those tax provisions were not included in the formal budget. Republicans said that the Democratic plan amounted to a tax increase. Democrats said they placed a higher priority on balancing the budget in five years while not cutting spending, and accused Republicans of running up the national debt since Bush took office. Republican Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) called the budget a "fiscal train wreck." "This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, would be used to finance bloated new government spending that will grow well above the rate of inflation through 2012, while also ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis," Sessions added. "Around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the very near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore, while going on its own spending spree elsewhere." Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) responded that he had no idea what Sessions was talking about. "The fact of the matter is that the Democratic budget resolution does not contain a single tax increase, period," a fact he said was backed up by numerous independent budget watchdog groups. "We need to correct the fiscal course of the country because the fiscal outlook that we are confronting has deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years because of the Republicans misplaced priorities," McGovern continued. "In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. That's $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, that surplus was gone, and the United States began accumulating an amount of national debt, adding $2.8 trillion to our federal debt burden since 2001." On a near party-line vote, the House voted to approve the budget resolution. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and all but 12 Democrats voted for its adoption. Thus, on a vote of 212 to 207, the House passed a five-year budget resolution that would leave open how to finance the extension of tax breaks that are set to expire at the end of the decade. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On adopting the rules for consideration (H. Res. 370) of the five-year budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99/S. Con. Res. 21)/Rule for a conference This vote was on adoption of the rules for consideration for a House-Senate budget resolution for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2013. The rule was necessary because the House Republican leadership did not agree to the customary unanimous consent agreement to allow the House to go to a join House-Senate conference committee on a Senate-numbered bill. The House Democratic leadership planned to take up the Senate's version of the budget resolution and then replace it with the House's version in a parliamentary move known as a substitute amendment. Rules of consideration are required to take up particular measures in the House, but commonly both parties agree to proceed on simple parliamentary matters without such formalities, a procedure known as unanimous consent. Republicans were opposed to this budget resolution because they said it laid out plans for what they called the biggest tax increase in American history, and they decided to begin their efforts to frustrate its passage not with the consideration of the resolution itself but with a usually non-controversial technical matter. The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced. This vote made way for the House's consideration of the budget resolution before it was to be sent to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out differences between the two chambers' versions. During three of the past five years of Republican control of Congress, one or both chambers failed to pass the budget resolution and the spending process proceeded without one. Logistically, adoption of this rule meant that the House would take up consideration of the Senate's version of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution and then automatically amend it with the text of the House resolution. It would then be in order for the House to insist on its version when House and Senate negotiators met to decide on a compromise plan. That resolution would then need to be sent back to each chamber for its approval in order for the budget resolution to be considered adopted. Among the differences between the chambers was the total fiscal 2008 discretionary spending (which excludes Medicare and Social Security funding), which the House's version set at $956 billion and the Senate wanted to see lowered by $7 billion. (The House's figure was also $23 billion more than President Bush requested.) "The rule is very simple," Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said. "It allows the House to disagree with the Senate budget resolution and request a conference. "This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the Republican leadership refused to agree to the customary unanimous consent request required to go to conference on a Senate numbered bill," McGovern continued. "In fact, there is no instance in recent memory where a separate rule has been adopted to go to conference with the Senate on a budget resolution due to the objection of a unanimous consent request. Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time figuring out why my Republican friends are choosing to be obstructionists on even the most routine housekeeping measures." Republicans countered that they were simply opposing what they labeled the largest tax increase in American history. What they were referring to was the budgetary treatment of future actions to renew tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Because the budget resolution is not binding, however, the debate essentially amounted to what sort of political statement Congress would make on the extension of the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010. (The sun-setting provision was originally put in place, at least in part, to mask their huge budgetary consequences at the time of enactment.) In its version of the resolution, the Senate went on record in supporting the extension of some of those tax cuts by financing their costs with expected surpluses. The House outlined its support for the extension of certain tax breaks less formally, drawing Republican criticism. House Republicans said that the House Democrats' plan amounted to a tax increase. Democrats said they placed a higher priority on balancing the budget in five years while not cutting spending, and accused Republicans of running up the national debt since Bush took office. Democrats maintained that the resolution promised to extend the child-tax credit, the so-called marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, the research and development tax credit and the education of state and local sales taxes, but those tax provisions were not included in the formal budget. "By voting against this rule," Republican Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) said, "every Member of this body can demonstrate their opposition to the federal largesse included in this budget, as well as their opposition to the largest tax increase in American history." On an almost completely party-line vote, the House voted to approve the rule. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and all but two Democrats voted for its adoption. Thus, on a vote of 221 to 197, the House moved to take up the Senate's version of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution and replace it with the text of the House version. The move was a Democratic victory over objections by Republicans who said that the budget amounted to blueprint for a tax increase because the House's version did not formally budget for the extension of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 that expire in 2010. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 377 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1294, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
Reauthorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (H.R. 1868)/Motion to recommit with instructions to cap funding if the federal government is tapping into the Social Security trust fund to finance federal programs This vote represented a Republican attempt to force the adoption of an amendment to a bill to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which conducts a wide range of scientific research. The bill would authorize $2.5 billion for the agency through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), the amendment would cap funding for NIST programs at the previous year's funding level if the federal government uses the Social Security trust fund to finance non-Social Security spending. In essence, English was attempting to use a procedural motion to tie funding for NIST programs with the health of the Social Security trust fund. The federal government has been borrowing (with interest paid) against surpluses in that fund for decades to finance other spending, but the impending retirement of millions of baby boomers is expected to require every bit of those surpluses. "In other words," English said, "new spending, because we were running a deficit, was inevitably at the expense of the Social Security system. "Mr. Speaker, by commingling our Social Security surplus with our deficit-ridden general fund, we potentially expose our Social Security system to risk by shielding our policymakers from their spending decisions to the full consequences and the full balance sheet," English added. "The time has come for us to change that practice. Specifically, this motion says that the funding authorized for the Advanced Technology Program will be capped at the previous year's appropriated amount until such time as the Social Security surplus is not used to foot part of the bill." Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) countered that the solvency of Social Security is now projected to be 42 years, "and that is based on conservative, conservative estimates." The projected solvency of the program has increased by almost a decade in the past eight years. The reason for that, Wu maintained, was economic growth. "There is nothing more important to the American economy and our competitiveness than the legislation that we are considering today," Wu continued. "The motion to recommit which the gentleman offers would fundamentally gut this legislation and prevent us from investing in the most productive of technologies, a traditional role which the federal government has played to support research and early-stage development, not commercialization, but early-stage development. By prohibiting those activities with this cap, what in essence would happen is our rate of economic growth would be slackened." A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. All but one Republican voted to send the spending bill back to the Science and Technology Committee with directions to cap funding unless the federal government did not borrow from the Social Security trust fund to finance other spending. But only five Democrats voted for the motion. By a vote of 190 to 216, the motion to recommit with instructions thus failed, and legislation to reauthorize the National Institutes of Standards and Technology moved towards a final up-or-down vote without the restriction. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
Expanding federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/On passage This was the final vote on a bill to expand the reach of federal hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability. Current federal hate-crimes law covers the use or threat of force against a person based on race, color, religion or national origin that interferes with the victim's ability to engage in six specific "federally protected" activities. This bill would remove from the definition interference with the victim's ability to engage in federally protected activities, effectively allowing federal law enforcement broader authority to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation would also authorize $5 million annually for grants for local law enforcement officials to help them investigate and prosecute hate crimes and stiffen the penalties for those convicted of such crimes. Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans don't think that crimes against homosexuals or other "special classes" of people should be treated differently than a crime committed against anyone else. Democrats and supporters of the legislation maintained that 15,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation were reported between 1991 and 2005, and that it was high time for the federal government to include those hate crimes in federal law side-by-side with crimes committed against people because of their race or national origin. They painted the issue as a simple one of civil rights. "Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society," said House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the bill's sponsor. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the legislation "will have a chilling effect on religious freedom and First Amendment rights." Republicans maintained that the bill would prompt religious leaders to be more reluctant to speak out against homosexuality out of fear that their words would later be linked to a crime for which they may be held responsible. The legislation passed easily on a mostly party-line vote. Twenty-five Republicans joined all but 14 Democrats present in voting for the measure. Thus, on a vote of 237 to 180, the House approved legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability. The bill then moved to the Senate. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
Expanding federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/Motion to recommit with instructions to send the bill back to committee to include crimes against the elderly and armed forces personnel in the definition of hate crimes This vote represented a Republican attempt to force an amendment to hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability. The amendment would have included crimes against the elderly and armed forces personnel in the definition of hate crimes, but Democrats charged that it was a thinly veiled attempt to kill the legislation. Republicans motioned to send (or recommit) the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add senior citizens and current and former members of the U.S. military to the criteria of victims protected under the legislation. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) made the motion, arguing that senior citizens and veterans deserved special protection, as well. "If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law?" Smith asked. "Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel?" Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) pointed out that the motion provided for the bill to be reported back to the House "promptly" rather than "forthwith," the customary language, insinuating that Republicans intended to send the legislation back to committee indefinitely and thus prevent its passage. The Speaker Pro Tempore, a designee of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who rules on parliamentary matters, confirmed Conyers' suspicion on the impact of the language in the motion. Conyers also pointed out that the Republican amendment was redundant with existing federal law. "The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both federal and state levels," Conyers said. Nonetheless, Conyers asked unanimous consent to amend the bill to add those two categories, but Smith objected. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Smith's refusal "reeks with the stench of cynicism." Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans don't think that crimes against homosexuals or other "special classes" of people should be treated differently than a crime committed against anyone else. Democrats said Republicans were simply standing in the way of civil rights. On a party-line vote, the House rejected the motion to recommit. Nine Democrats joined all but 11 Republicans in voting to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee, but the "nays" prevailed. Thus, by a vote of 189 to 227, the House defeated a Republican motion to force an amendment to hate crimes legislation that would have included crimes against the elderly and armed services personnel in the federal definition of hate crimes and sent the legislation back to committee indefinitely. With the last-ditch Republican effort to alter and delay the legislation dispensed with, a bill that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability moved towards a final up-or-down vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
H. Res. 364, providing for the consideration of legislation to expand federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/On adoption of the rule This was the final vote on the rules for debate for a bill to expand the reach of federal hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Current federal hate-crimes law covers the use or threat of force against a person based on race, color, religion or national origin that interferes with the victim's ability to engage in six specific "federally protected" activities. This bill would remove from the definition interference with the victim's ability to engage in federally protected activities, effectively allowing federal law enforcement broader authority to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation would also authorize $5 million annually for grants for local law enforcement officials to help them investigate and prosecute hate crimes and stiffen the penalties for those convicted of such crimes. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the underlying bill as well as in protest of the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor. Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans were irritated that the Rules Committee prevented all 18 amendments presented from being offered on the House floor for consideration by the full chamber. "Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied the right to offer improvements to this legislation," Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said. "I urge my colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law." Democrats said Republicans were simply standing in the way of civil rights. "We are talking about life and death issues here," said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.). "And, unfortunately, I think it is clear that there are some on the other side of the aisle who oppose the expansion of civil rights protections for threatened groups living in the United States, and I believe they are flat wrong. But this gives the Members, every Member of the House, the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or not they believe that we should expand protections. I think this is an appropriate rule, and I strongly support the underlying bill." All Republicans present voted against the rules package. All but nine Democrats voted for it. On an almost party-line vote of 213 to 199, the House approved the rules for consideration for legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to included crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability, thus paving the way to bring the bill for consideration on the House floor. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
H. Res. 364, providing for the consideration of legislation to expand federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/Motion to order previous question (ending debate and prohibiting amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate for a bill to expand the reach of federal hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. Current federal hate-crimes law covers the use or threat of force against a person based on race, color, religion or national origin that interferes with the victim's ability to engage in six specific "federally protected" activities. This bill would remove from the definition interference with the victim's ability to engage in federally protected activities, effectively allowing federal law enforcement broader authority to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation would also authorize $5 million annually for grants for local law enforcement officials to help them investigate and prosecute hate crimes and stiffen the penalties for those convicted of such crimes. Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the underlying bill as well as in protest of the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor. Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans don't think that crimes against homosexuals or other "special classes" of people should be treated differently than a crime committed against anyone else. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said, "if someone commits a crime, they should be punished, period." He added, "It is a bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I ask Members to oppose the rule and the previous question." Supporters of the legislation maintained that 15,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation were reported between 1991 and 2005, and that it was high time for the federal government to include those hate crimes in federal law side-by-side with crimes committed against people because of their race or national origin. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said, "violent acts fueled by bigotry and hatred of a particular group simply because of who they are has no place in America." If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but five Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 217-196. Thus, on an almost party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Hate Crimes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to prohibit the authorized funding levels for the agency from going into effect unless the cost of the legislation was offset This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would have prohibited the authorized funding levels for the agency from going into effect unless the cost of the legislation was offset by spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the federal budget. "The NSF has a mission to achieve excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at all levels and all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training, from classrooms to science museums and online resources, having done so for the last half century," Price said. "So while what this bill does is extremely important, $20.973 billion is a considerable amount of money even here in Washington, and it is equally important that we are good stewards of the hard-earned money of the American people. We should not limit our talk about fiscal responsibility only when it is politically convenient." What Price was advocating for is known as pay-as-you-go spending rules, or PAYGO. Promises to adhere to PAYGO spending rules are oft made by both parties, and Price was attempting to hold the new Democratic majority to their pledge of fiscal responsibility when they retook control of Congress at the beginning of 2007. Only Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), the author of the legislation, rose to oppose Price's amendment, and he had only this to say: "The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia has been offered before. It has been defeated before on other bills. I would urge its defeat. And after we accomplish that, I would urge passage of this otherwise outstanding bill." With no further debate, Price's amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, joined by nine Republicans who broke with party ranks and voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 183 to 253, the House defeated an amendment to require that legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation for three years with almost $21 billion in funding not go into effect unless the funding levels were offset by spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the federal budget. The legislation proceeded to a final vote without the requirement, and the bill went on to pass easily. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) amendment to establish a program to help communicate NSF research results to the public This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the amendment would direct NSA to provide grant supplements to institutions that receive awards through the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. The supplemental funding would be used to train graduate students in communicating their research to "non-scientist audiences." "I believe this proposal will ensure that we are getting as much return on the Federal Government's investment in the National Science Foundation as possible," Matsui said. "By implementing this program, it would diversify the education of our scientists and would ensure that policymakers and other nonscientists have better access to the technical expertise fostered by NSF and the nation's broader research enterprise, because if scientists can't tell the rest of us what they have discovered, we are not fully recognizing the benefits of our investment in scientific research." Matsui said her proposal would "create a pipeline of scientists who are increasingly engaged with nonscientists, including policymakers, business leaders and others." Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) said he rose to oppose Matsui's amendment "with some reluctance" because he supported her underlying goal. Ehlers, who has been a consistent advocate for increased funding for NSF, said he was first concerned that Matsui's amendment would cut into an already tight budget for the agency. "But my major objection is, I have taught at the university level and have taught at the college level," Ehlers said. "I have always felt this is the responsibility of the colleges and universities to do, and they shouldn't need an NSF grant to do this." Despite Ehlers' objection, Matsui's amendment was easily adopted. Twelve Republicans crossed party lines to support it, while six Democrats broke ranks in opposition. Thus, on a vote of 232 to 186, the House adopted a proposal to require the National Science Foundation to institute a program to help communicate NSF research results to lay audiences, and legislation reauthorizing the agency for the next three years went forward with the provision. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) amendment to strike the creation of a pilot program to help individuals to improve grant applications that were previously not selected for funding This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the amendment would have stricken from bill the creation of a pilot program to help individuals to improve grant applications that were previously not selected for funding. "Are there not sufficient programs within the National Science Foundation that we should be funding, that we have extra money to actually fund people who did not get the grants to help them improve their proposals that they might get a grant next year?" Flake asked. Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who authored the legislation to which Flake was seeking to amend, said that the pilot program was designed to keep young scientists "in the pipeline." "If you look at the data on when people are most productive, it does not correlate particularly well with when they get the most funding. There are a host of reasons for that. Part of the reason is it takes some time to learn how to do the grants," Baird said. "Sometimes the more senior members, the people with the long established research credentials and careers are just going to have more access to research because the peer reviewers are going to say, look, it is a safe bet to bet on this guy or this woman," Baird added. "The unknown person, the new person who may hold the promise of tomorrow, has a comparative disadvantage." Flake's amendment was rejected easily. Only seven Democrats supported it, and 71 Republicans broke ranks with their party to vote against it. Thus, on a vote of 128 to 290, the House rejected an amendment that would have stricken the creation of a pilot program within the National Science Foundation to help individuals improve grant applications that had been previously rejected, and legislation to reauthorize the agency went forward with the program in place. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) amendment that would require a 0.5 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), the amendment would require a 0.5 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency. The bill to which Garrett was seeking to amend would increase spending for NSF by 9.9 percent in the first year, 7.4 percent in the second year and 7.3 percent in the third year, for an increase of over 25 percent over a 3-year period. Garrett's amendment followed a failed attempt by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) to cut the agency's proposed funding levels by 1 percent (see Roll Call 290). Garrett said he was offering his amendment as an incentive for NSF to "identify waste and any abuse within the agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not working." "So when we purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of inflation?" Garrett asked. Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who authored the legislation, reiterated his objection to an across-the-board funding cut in the same terms he outlined against Campbell's amendment. He cited comments by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), who previously pointed out that the return on investment on NSF research grants is perhaps the highest of any other federal agency - "a tremendous amount of our economic prosperity today came from those investigations," Baird added. "I agree that we have got a huge fiscal problem," Baird continued. "But, again, I will tell you that if you look at the long-term drivers of the fiscal problems this country faces, nobody says it is that vast waste at the National Science Foundation that is driving this country into debt. They say it is a combination of revenue, it is a combination of entitlement programs, it is a combination of defense. I agree we ought to debate those, but not on the back of the National Science Foundation, for goodness sake." Garrett's amendment found only a handful more supporters than did Campbell's proposal. All but six Democrats voted against it, and all but 72 Republicans voted for it. Thus, on a vote of 126 to 292, the House rejected an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have reduced the agency's proposed funding levels by 0.5 percent across-the-board, and the bill moved forward without the reduction. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) amendment that would require a 1 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), the amendment would require a 1 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency. The bill to which Campbell was seeking to amend would increase spending for NSF by 9.9 percent in the first year, 7.4 percent in the second year and 7.3 percent in the third year, for an increase of over 25 percent over a 3-year period. Campbell said those increases concerned him because of the mounting federal budget deficit. He added that no prediction indicated that the federal government was going to have a 25 percent increase in revenue over the same period. Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said cutting funding for research and scientific education was not the way to balance the budget and would instead lead to greater budget deficits and negatively impact national security and countless other areas. Baird listed reports by the National Academies of Science, the U.S. Commission on National Security, the Hart-Rudman commission on national security, the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, as well as a coalition of 15 industry associations that all called for similar or greater increases to the NSF budget as the legislation would authorize. "I would also encourage you to ask your faculty administrators, ask your high technology industries, do you think this country is spending sufficient quantities on fundamental basic research and investment such as that funded by National Science Foundation? And do you think we are doing enough to keep our young people educated in science and math in ways such as supported by this legislation? I guarantee you most of them would say no," Baird continued. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) added that he found it ironic that Campbell was proposing to cut "the funding of the one agency that returns more on its money than any other agency does." Furthermore, he said that the National Science Foundation is "just about the lowest-cost research institution" and accounts for significantly less spending than the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health or NASA. "One of the lowest costs with the highest rate of return, I don't see any reason in the world to cut the NSF," Ehlers concluded. Campbell's amendment was easily defeated. Only five Democrats crossed party lines to support it, while 82 Republicans voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 115 to 301, the House rejected an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have reduced the agency's proposed funding levels by 1 percent across-the-board, and the bill moved forward without the reduction. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) amendment to prohibit the use of NSF funds for research related to a number of specific topics such as archives of Andean knotted-string records and bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), the amendment would prohibit the use of NSF funds for research related to a number of specific topics such as archives of Andean knotted-string records and bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains. Campbell wanted to cut research projects on account of the growing budget deficit. In addition to the Andean knotted-string and bison projects, Campbell would have put the following research projects on the chopping block: the accuracy in cross-cultural understanding of others' emotions; team versus individual play; sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal; social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre's Leaf Monkeys; and a cognitive model of superstitious belief. "What this amendment does is it says that there are certain things upon which we should not be spending money through this bill during this time of budget deficits, stealing Social Security funds, and increasing taxes," Campbell said. "The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits, proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds? I think the answer is a resounding no." Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) countered that the budget deficit rose to historic levels under the leadership of the Republican Party. He went on to explain that Campbell's amendment would set a dangerous precedent of congressional micromanagement in the activities of peer-reviewed scientific grants. "While congressional oversight of federal programs is, of course, important, second-guessing peer review in this way could compromise the fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time." "And I would be tempted to ask the gentleman from California, except he's already stated his piece, why he would be opposing research that has been supported by the United States Army Research Institute; that is seen as critical to the security of our troops serving in Iraq," Baird added, referring to the study on the accuracy of cross-cultural understanding of emotions. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) seconded Baird's assertion that one cannot judge a scientific project by its title. He added that the "best estimate" of the return on investment for research funded by the National Science Foundation is a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum of 400 percent. "Now, I challenge anyone in this chamber to find investments that will year after year give you that rate of return on the investment," Ehlers said. Campbell's amendment was rejected. Nineteen Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it, and 22 Democrats broke with their party in voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 195 to 222, the House rejected an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have prevented the agency from funding seven specific research projects, and the bill went forward without the provision. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) amendment to require NSF to create curriculum for kindergarten through 12th graders on climate change, climate science and strategies to reduce greenhouse gases This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), the amendment would require that NSF create educational materials on global warming for kindergarten through 12th graders. As a former science teacher, Honda said his amendment was driven by his understanding that many scientific concepts are difficult to grasp and seem abstract and irrelevant to many people, but humans' ability to arrest the catastrophic consequences of global climate change will rest on our ability to grasp why it's happening and what we can do to change course. "And, we don't have much time," he said. "Global warming will cause significant impacts, including shifting weather patterns, drought, rising sea levels, and disrupted wildlife migration patterns. Nearly every point on the globe is getting warmer, and the debate is no longer if, but when, these changes will occur. "These threats are the most natural consequences of a worldwide over-reliance on fossil fuels and destructive, wasteful use of resources. We have lived on the earth, but we have not yet learned to live with the earth," Honda continued. His amendment would direct NSF to create informal education materials, exhibits, and multi-media relevant to global warming, climate science, and greenhouse reduction strategies. "The education provided by this amendment will help people of all ages and backgrounds to make choices in their daily lives and in their communities to stop global warming," Honda concluded, adding that while the only true answer is a comprehensive energy policy, this information would empower young people to make a difference in their own lives. No Republicans spoke out against the amendment, although a majority supported a failed attempt by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) to modify Honda's amendment to require NSF to include a "diversity of viewpoints" about the causes and implications of global climate change in its educational materials. (See Roll Call 287.) Honda's amendment was adopted with unanimous Democratic support, and 27 Republicans joined them in passing it. Thus, on a vote of 252 to 165, the House approved an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would require the agency to produce educational materials for kindergarten through 12th graders on the issue of global climate change. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) amendment to require educational materials on climate change put out by NSF to reflect the "diversity of scientific viewpoints" on whether human activity is responsible for changing weather patterns This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), the amendment would have required that educational materials on global warming put out by NSF for kindergarten through 12th graders reflect, in Sullivan's words, the "diversity of scientific viewpoints" on the subject. The amendment was what is known as a second-degree amendment, basically an amendment to an amendment, and sought to modify an amendment proposed by Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) that would direct NSF to develop educational materials regarding climate change, climate science and strategies to reduce greenhouse gases for kindergarten through 12th graders. (See Roll Call 288.) Sullivan asserted that his amendment would have strengthened Honda's proposal (which was subsequently adopted) by ensuring that "children are educated on all aspects of global climate change," including the impact of greenhouse gas reduction strategies on the U.S. economy, energy costs and developing nations. Sullivan said his amendment would ensure children are given a "fair and balanced scientific education." Many Republicans in Congress question whether human activity is having a significant impact on global weather patterns and the overall warming of the planet. They have continually presented the science as undecided, despite the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists and national and international scientific agencies have asserted that human activity, specifically the production of greenhouse gases from combustion, are having a detrimental effect on global weather patterns and the ability of the planet to sustain the almost 7 billion people who live on it. Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said that Sullivan's amendment erroneously suggested that "there is an equal weight of evidence against that perspective as there is in favor of it," an assertion that Baird said is contradicted by scientists all over the world. Baird asserted that as a former science teacher himself, he appreciated what Sullivan was trying to do in fostering debate, but added that he was concerned the proposal would lead to "micromanaging the education process" and the awkward task of trying to explain U.S. energy policy to 5-year-olds. "I question whether we really want to mandate that a kindergarten teacher educate her or his students on the impact of greenhouse gases on U.S. energy security, global developing nations, et cetera," Baird said. Sullivan's amendment was rejected on a mostly party-line vote. Twenty-eight Republicans joined all but three Democrats in voting against it. Thus, by a vote of 166 to 250, the House rejected a second-degree amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have required the agency to include a diversity of viewpoints on the human impacts on global climate change in educational materials for kindergarten through 12th graders, and an amendment directing the agency to produce the educational materials proceeded towards an up-or-down vote without the requirement. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Motion to recommit with instructions to amend the legislation to permit faith-based organizations that provide federally funded early-childhood development programs to take religious affiliation into account when hiring employees and clarify that such organizations could use "religious art, icons, scripture or other symbols" This was a vote to force adoption of an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. The proposal would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to allow faith-based recipients of Head Start funding to take religion into account when hiring employees for their early-childhood development programs. The amendment would have also clarified that faith-based organizations would not have to remove "religious art, icons, scripture or other symbols" in order to be eligible for federal funds. The bill to which Republicans were seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. Republicans attempted to force action on their proposal because Democratic-run Rules Committee blocked Republicans from offering a similar amendment on the House floor. (See Roll Calls 273-4.) Thus, a parliamentary tool called a motion to recommit was the only option Republican had left. If passed, a motion to recommit with instructions would have sent the legislation back to Education and Labor Committee with specific directions to amend the bill. The amendment Republicans wanted to attach was drafted by Del. Luis Fortu¬ño (R-Puerto Rico). Republicans claimed that allowing groups receiving federal funds to use religion as a factor in hiring was both a civil rights and civil liberties issue. Democrats called it straight-up discrimination. Republican Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.) said that the amendment was meant to fix a "flaw" in the Head Start law, as "faith-based institutions have been forced to relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in the federal early childhood program we are poised to reauthorize today." "Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith because it is that faith that motivates them to serve their neighbors in trouble," Fortu¬ño added. Democrats said religious organizations were free to do as they wished so long as they don't accept federal funds. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) said the amendment should have been called the "religious job discrimination act." Edwards called himself "a person of faith," and pointed out that the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the Episcopal Church, and the NAACP all opposed the Republican amendment. "Our principle is simple but deeply profound. No American, not one, should ever have to pass another American's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded federal job," Edwards added. On an almost completely party-line vote, the House rejected the Republican motion to recommit. Two Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it, while four Democrats supported it. Thus, on a vote of 195 to 222, the House voted down a Republican proposal to allow faith-based groups that accept federal funds for Head Start to hire employees for their early-childhood development programs based on the individuals' religious affiliations, and legislation to reauthorize Head Start moved towards a final up-or-down vote without the language. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) amendment to outline the importance of faith- and community-based organizations participation in the Head Start program This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), the amendment would include congressional findings outlining the history and importance of faith- and community-based organizations in the early-childhood development program. The amendment would also add language clarifying that faith- and community-based groups would continue to be eligible to participate in the Head Start program on the same basis as other organizations. The bill to which Shuler was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill. Shuler himself attended a Head Start program when he was young, and he said he was proud that it had "helped make me the man that I am today." "It's time for Congress to recognize that faith communities contribute to Head Start," Shuler continued. "This amendment thanks the community and faith-based organizations for the good work that they have done running the Head Start programs. It also confirms its right to continue running these programs." Approximately 80 organizations that receive federal grants for early-childhood programs have religious affiliations. Republicans countered that the amendment was simply a ruse by and political cover for Democrats, who had prevented a Republican-drafted amendment from being considered that would have allowed religious organizations that receive federal funds to use a potential employee's religious affiliation as a factor in hiring. The Democratic-run Rules Committee blocked the amendment - which would have allowed faith-based groups receiving federal funds to discriminate based on religious affiliation in their hiring practices - from being considered on the House floor. (See Roll Calls 273-4.) "It has nothing to do with protecting the civil rights of faith-based providers," said Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). "Instead, the majority has brought up a hollow, politically motivated attempt to have it both ways. On one hand, this amendment cheers the work of faith-based providers and recognizes their contributions to our nation; but on the other hand, it leaves them completely unprotected when it comes to their right to preserve their identity while serving children in Head Start. Frankly, this is insulting to faith-based organizations as it is transparent." Shuler's amendment was adopted despite near-unanimous Republican objection. Only three Republicans voted for it, and two Democrats broke ranks with their party and voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 229 to 195, the House adopted an amendment that lauded the role of faith- and community-based organizations in Head Start and reaffirmed their ability to continue receiving federal grants to provide early-childhood development programs, and a bill to reauthorize Head Start moved forward with the language. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) amendment to allow Head Start grantees, due to inadequate funding, to negotiate to reduce the number of children enrolled in the program if it is necessary to maintain the quality of services This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), the amendment would allow recipients of federal grants for early-childhood services to low-income children to negotiate with the Health and Human Services Department to reduce the number of children enrolled in the programs if the funding they receive is less than the previous year's appropriation and cuts are necessary to maintain the quality of services. The bill to which Carnahan was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill. "My amendment would allow for Head Start grantees to negotiate a funded enrollment level with the HHS Secretary if funding for the program does not keep pace with inflation," Carnahan said, adding that over the past three years, the Head Start program has experienced an 8 percent real decline in federal funding adjusted for inflation. "This decline in funding has required already efficient Head Start agencies across the country to tighten their belts even more. Sadly, local agencies are now forced to pass these cuts on to quality staff," Carnahan continued. Republicans opposed Carnahan's amendment because they said it would essentially allow programs that receive Head Start funding to blackmail the federal government for more money. "In effect, this amendment allows grantees to cut services for children and kick children out of the Head Start program if Congress does not appropriate ever-higher funding amounts for Head Start," said Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). "I think all of us want to service as many children as we can, and we want to have as high an appropriation level as we can, but if we fail to appropriate higher numbers, I don't think we should take it out on the children." Democrats countered that the cuts were already hurting children, and that diluting an already stretched program would benefit no one. Democrats were near unanimous in their support for Carnahan's proposal, with only one voting against. They were joined by 26 Republicans. Thus, by a vote of 253 to 171, the House voted to allow Head Start programs to negotiate with the federal government to curtail enrollment if budget cuts otherwise would cause the quality of the programs to suffer, and a bill to reauthorize the early-childhood development program proceeded with the provision. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1429 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) amendment to require that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have bachelor's degrees by 2011 This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) the amendment would require that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have bachelor's degrees by 2011. The bill to which Mica was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill. The underlying legislation would require that all Head Start teachers have a bachelor's or advanced degree in childhood education or related field by the end of fiscal 2013. Mica's amendment would move that date up two years. Currently, 38 percent of Head Start teachers meet this goal. "Now, we've moved this program from what I called it 14 years ago, from a glorified babysitting program, to a program that is giving our students the opportunity for quality educational opportunity," Mica said. "And these young people, at this age, deserve the very best. They are coming from the very worst, the worst as far as disadvantage in our society, the worst as far as opportunity, as far as family setting, as far as their readiness for school." Mica continued that there are more Head Start programs in Democrat districts than there are in Republican districts, "just by the sheer economics of it, the demographics." He asked what if he came with a proposal that said only 50 percent of kindergarten teachers in Democrat districts would need to have bachelor's degrees, "how would you like that?" Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) responded that those who crafted the bill were trying to balance "the best we can do to increase the number of teachers with a B.A. degree in child education, child development and at the same time meet the other needs of the program. And to accelerate that effort on behalf of more teachers with an M.A. upsets that balance." Miller said that tough choices were part and parcel of the measure's drafting. He gave the example that a million children are waiting to get into Head Start. He said someone could offer an amendment to put all of the Head Start funding into accommodating all children who are eligible. "Then you just reduce the quality and the availability to pay teachers to have them to stay. So this isn't a game where you can just pick out one part of the program and say, let's put the money there, and that's the reason why we did what we did." Mica's amendment failed with a majority of Republicans supporting it and only one Democrat in favor. Thus, on a vote of 137 to 286, the House rejected an amendment to require 50 percent of all Head Start teachers to obtain bachelor's degrees or higher by 2011, and legislation to reauthorize the early-childhood program went forward with a requirement that the goal be met by 2013. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/ Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) amendment that would forgive student loans for teachers who agree to commit to the program for three years This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) the amendment would authorize the Education Department to implement a program to forgive student loans for Head Start teachers who receive a bachelor's degree in a field related to early childhood education and agree to teach in the Head Start program for at least three years. The bill to which Sestak was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill. Sestak billed his amendment as a way to both attract new teachers to Head Start as well as to provide a way for existing Head Start teachers to improve their skills and education. Sestak proposed to forgive loans of up to $10,000. "Head Start teachers are so critical at the time of a child's cognitive reasoning development, and this amendment recognizes this by ensuring that more than 55,000 Head Start teachers have the means of getting their bachelor's degree by forgiving their student loan burden," Sestak said. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said he supported the intent of the amendment, but asserted that he thought it would be better attached to legislation dealing with higher education, which was scheduled to come up for consideration later in the year. "We did a study, and we found that most of the education programs don't come under the Department of Education, they come under 39 other bureaucracies throughout this town," McKeon said. "And it would be, I think, moving to try to have things more organized. It fits better under the Higher Ed Act, and I would encourage that the gentleman put it under that." McKeon encouraged Sestak to withdrawal the amendment and wait to attach it to the higher education bill, which Sestak declined to do. Regardless, Sestak had more than ample support to pass his amendment. Eighty-seven Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic majority in approving the proposal. Thus, on a vote of 312 to 107, the House adopted an amendment to the Head Start bill creating a loan-forgiveness program for individuals obtaining a degree in early-childhood education who commit to teaching in the program for at least three years. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439/ Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to establish a pilot program to allow eight states to take over the federally funded early-childhood program This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the early-childhood development program Head Start through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would have initiated a pilot program to allow eight states to "coordinate" their early-childhood development programs with Head Start, essentially allowing the states to take over the program with federal funds. The bill to which Price was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill. Price called his amendment one "of expansion and educational opportunities for our young children." The amendment would have required that participating states ensure that participants receive services that are as good or better than those in the Head Start program, including health care, nutrition, mental health services as well as educational services. Democrats charged that Price's amendment was nothing more than a cover to begin dismantling Head Start as a federal program. "What this amendment would do would simply end Head Start in those eight states as we know it," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said." There would be no requirement that those states would take the money that we have set aside, that we have worked hard to provide within the budget for the Head Start program, and use it to implement a program that is anything like Head Start." Twenty-seven Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic majority in rejecting Price's proposal. Thus, on a vote of 165 to 254, the House defeated an attempt to create a pilot program to turn Head Start funding over to the states, and legislation to reauthorize the federal early-childhood program went forward without the provision. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
Emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other purposes (H.R. 1591)/Presidential veto override This vote was on whether to override President Bush's May 1 veto of a mid-year funding bill for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation would have provided $124.2 billion for "emergency" funding for fiscal 2007, including $95.5 billion for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush vetoed the legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008. The timetable stipulated that ground troops would have to be withdrawn from that country by the end of 2007 if the president couldn't certify that the Iraqi government is meeting certain benchmarks. In order for Congress to override a veto, both Houses have to sustain a two-thirds majority. The seventh "emergency" spending bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term, the bill would have sent another $124.3 billion towards the Iraq war effort while taking steps toward ending the 4-year-old conflict. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.) In addition to the military funding, the legislation would also raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years, the first wage hike in a decade, as well as provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. The measure also included money for veterans' health care, recovery for the areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes, children's health care as well as Homeland Security initiatives. Although many provisions in the legislation were controversial, none was more divisive than the timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said that the fact is "that this bill is first, last and foremost about the war. It is about how we get our troops out of the war." Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) countered that imposing a timetable for withdrawal would be mark "retreating over the horizon," and will come with "frightening strategic consequences." "This fighting will spill into neighboring countries, threaten our allies and then spread throughout the Middle East," Ros-Lehtinen continued, adding that the result would be a "humanitarian crisis." Democrats pointed out that Iraq is already experiencing a civil war and the presence of U.S. ground troops only seems to be exacerbating the situation. In the end, the Democrats did not have votes to override Bush's veto, falling far short of the two-thirds needed. Seven Democrats broke with their party and voted against overriding, while two Republicans crossed over to vote to withdrawal. Thus, by a vote of 222 to 203, legislation to fund continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008 failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the president's veto, and the legislation died in its current form. In order to fund the military operations, Congress then had to once again move legislation to do so through both the House and the Senate. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
Providing for the consideration of legislation to authorize $2.5 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology from fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2010/On adoption of the rule (H. Res. 350) This was a vote on the rules for consideration for legislation to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology from fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2010 and provide for $2.5 billion in funding for the agency during that time. Funding for federal agencies occurs in a two-step process under normal circumstances: First the spending levels are "authorized" and later they are actually funded through appropriations bills. Congress, with the constitutional power of the purse, has to approve spending by federal agencies, which in practice determines whether they continue to exist. The matter at hand was the reauthorization of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST resides within the Commerce Department and conducts a wide range of federally funded scientific research designed to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the bill, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. The rule made in order five amendments approved by the Rules Committee. By contrast, an "open rule" permits any and all relevant amendments to come to a vote on the House floor. Despite significant Republican support for the underlying bill, Republicans opposed the rules package on the grounds that it was too restrictive. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) pointed out that the last time NIST was reauthorized when Republicans controlled Congress, the majority allowed for an open rule. "I rise today in strong support of promoting technological innovation, bolstering the strength of our manufacturing industry and contributing to the overall global competitiveness of American business," Sessions said. "However, I simply cannot support the closed rule process brought forward today by the Democrat majority that prevents all but one Republican amendment from being considered by the House." Although Democrats didn't defend the rule on these terms, and instead just spoke of their support for the underlying bill, in general the majority desires to have the most controlled process as possible for moving bills through the House. Unlimited amendments offer an opportunity for the minority to slow the legislative process and to assert priorities often at odds with the majority party's. As is customary on such procedural votes, the two party's captured total or near-complete loyalty from within their ranks on the rules package. Only two Republicans voted for it, joining every Democrat present in passing the measure. Thus, on a vote of 226 to 189, the House approved the rules of consideration for legislation to reauthorize the National Institutes of Standards and Technology through 2012, and the bill moved towards an up-or-down vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
Providing for consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program (H.R. 1429)/On adoption of the rules package (H. Res. 348) This was the final vote on the rules for consideration for legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the bill, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Although reauthorizing the early-childhood development program - and thus approving $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 (and such sums as necessary through fiscal 2012) - found considerable support among Republicans, and a majority of them ended up voting for final passage of the legislation, the rules package was a different matter. Republicans balked because they wanted to offer an amendment to allow religious organizations that receive federal funds to use a potential employee's religious affiliation as a factor in hiring. The Rules Committee blocked a Republican amendment to that effect from being considered on the House floor, however, drawing Republican objection. The provision had been included in previous Head Start authorization bills. Approximately 80 organizations that receive federal grants for early-childhood programs have religious affiliations, though not all consider religious affiliation in selecting their employees Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) said "the Democratic majority pays lip service to their support of religious people and faith-based groups, but now they are here today, in this House, enacting a piece of legislation that I believe is a shot across the bow to all faith-based organizations that are involved in social services in this country. The Head Start bill today says that if you participate in the grant process, you will not be able to hire like-minded people to work in your child-care facility." Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) countered that "No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a publicly funded job." "Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking for this change," Castor continued. "They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's religion. This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue." On a completely party-line vote, the House voted to approve the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 196, the rules for consideration of a bill to reauthorize the federal early-childhood program Head Start passed, and the legislation moved towards an up-or-down vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
Providing for consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program (H.R. 1429)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate) on the rules package (H. Res. 348) This was a vote to determine who would control the agenda as the House began debate on a bill to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Under consideration was the rules for debate for the legislation, and this vote was to essentially force a vote on the resolution. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the bill, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority's agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Opposing motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda. Although reauthorizing the early-childhood development program - and thus approving $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 (and such sums as necessary through fiscal 2012) - found considerable support among Republicans, and a majority of them ended up voting for final passage of the legislation, the rules package was a different matter. Republicans balked because they wanted to offer an amendment to allow religious organizations that receive federal funds to use a potential employee's religious affiliation as a factor in hiring. However, the Rules Committee blocked a Republican amendment to that effect from being considered on the House floor , drawing Republican objection. The provision had been included in previous Head Start authorization bills. Approximately 80 organizations that receive federal grants for early-childhood programs have religious affiliations, though not all consider religious affiliation in selecting their employees "Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations," Rep. Lincoln Diaz Balart (R-Fla.) said. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) countered that "No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a publicly funded job." "Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking for this change," Castor continued. "They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's religion. This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue." This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. The House voted on an almost entirely party-line vote to approve the motion to order the previous question. Only one Democrat and one Republican broke rank with their respective parties, otherwise all Democrats were in favor and all Republicans were opposed. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 194, the Democrats maintained control of the debate and a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill to reauthorize the federal early-childhood program Head Start moved towards and up-or-down vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
Prohibition on the sale of wild horses for meat (H.R. 249)/On passage This was the final vote on an a bill to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from selling for meat horses that roam wildly on federal lands or currently are in federal holding facilities. Under current law, the bureau can sell wild horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times or are over 10 years old for $10 per animal. The provision was put into place through an amendment sneaked into a 2005 appropriations bill by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, mostly to be shipped overseas. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) made an impassioned plea for the wild horses in the United States, calling them a symbol of the American spirit and the American West. According to Moran, at the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million roamed free. By the 1950s, their population dwindled to fewer than 20,000 due to poaching for pet food and human consumption in Europe and Asia. "I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the argument that is raised," Moran said. "But that is not an excuse not to pass this legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are killed." Republicans and some Western Democrats countered that excess horse populations are causing significant environmental damage. "Even conservation groups such as the National Association of Conservation Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Izaak Walton League, and a number of others have acknowledged the damage caused by this overpopulation of horses," Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho). "Balanced management, respecting recreation, watersheds, wildlife and grazing must be restored to the public lands where these horses roam." Eighty-two Republicans broke party ranks and voted for the bill, more than making up for the 24 Democratic defectors. Thus, by a final vote of 277 to 137, legislation to ban the sale of wild horses to be slaughtered for meat easily passed the House. The legislation then moved to the Senate. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
Prohibition on the sale of wild horses for meat (H.R. 249)/Motion to recommit with instructions to include language prohibiting the legislation from taking effect until the Interior secretary certifies that the long-term cost of caring for horses in federal facilities does not exceed $500,000 annually This vote was on a motion to force a vote on an amendment to a bill to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from selling for meat horses that roam wildly on federal lands or currently are in federal holding facilities. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would prohibit the legislation from going into effect until 60 days after the Interior secretary certifies to Congress that the long-term cost of caring for the animals not sold as a result of the bill does not exceed $500,000 annually. In effect, Price's move was a way to gut the legislation. A previous attempt by Price to do so failed (see Roll Call 267). This time, Price used a parliamentary tool called a motion to recommit with instructions, which, if passed, would have sent the legislation back to committee with specific directions to amend the bill. Under current law, the bureau can sell wild horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times or are over 10 years old for $10 per animal. The provision was put into place through an amendment sneaked into a 2005 appropriations bill by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). According to Price, it costs BLM roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter roughly 30,000 wild horses in its management program. In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, mostly to be shipped overseas. "As of December 2004, 8,400 wild horses and burros became eligible for sale, and as of April 2007, the Bureau of Land Management has sold more than 2,300 horses," Price said. "If the remaining horses which are available for sale are safe for long-term care, then the secretary should be required to clarify that the care will not create an undue financial burden on the American people." Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) first chastised Price for offering his proposal as a motion to recommit instead of as a straight-up amendment to the bill, which would have been allowable under the rules for consideration. Motions to recommit are often used as parliamentary tools to legislate by surprise, as there is no requirement that the lawmaker (usually a member of the minority party) show the motion to anyone before offering it, a procedure that is required for regular amendments. On the substance of Price's proposal, Rahall pointed out that there was no time limit on how long the secretary of Interior can take to certify to Congress that the care of unsold horses won't exceed $500,000. "I am assuming that the gentleman is entrusting the same federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, that has so mismanaged this whole process in the beginning, entrusting with that agency the same responsibility to do such certification," Rahall pointed out. "Again, there is no time limit. It could be 30 days, it could be 30 years, it could be 300 years before the secretary so certifies. "So the amendment is purely a killer amendment," Rahall concluded. Price's motion to recommit was easily defeated, with 39 Republicans joining all but 26 Democrats in voting against it. The proposal found support from some Democrats from Western states. Thus, by a vote of 182 to 234, the House rejected an amendment to require that the secretary of Interior certify that a bill to ban the slaughter of wild horses for meat not cost the federal government more than $500,000 annually for the care of the unsold horses - a provision designed to gut the bill. The legislation moved towards a final vote without language effectively nullifying it. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
Prohibition on the sale of wild horses for meat (H.R. 249)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to prohibit the legislation from going into effect unless its cost would be offset elsewhere in the budget This vote was on an amendment to a bill to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from selling for meat horses that roam wildly on federal lands or currently are in federal holding facilities. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would prohibit the legislation from going into effect unless its cost would be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. Under current law, the bureau can sell wild horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times or are over 10 years old for $10 per animal. The provision was put into place through an amendment sneaked into a 2005 appropriations bill by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Price said that without his amendment the legislation would cause the bureau to "lose the minimal revenue it is currently able to generate from the sale of the animals and incur additional costs by requiring it to provide long-term care for the animals that they otherwise wouldn't have to, essentially, by mandating a new responsibility." According to Price, it costs BLM roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter roughly 30,000 wild horses in its management program. In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, mostly to be shipped overseas. Price said his amendment was a "simple" pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) mandate that required the legislation to be revenue neutral for the federal government. Democrats said Price's amendment was out of line on the grounds that the underlying legislation "neither authorizes nor contains any spending," the usual grounds to trigger PAYGO rules. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) said that the bill would merely return the law to the way it existed for 33 years before Burns got it changed without a hearing. Rahall added that both the Congressional Budget Office as well as the House Budget Committee "determined that there are no PAYGO implications with H.R. 249." Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) pointed out that Price's amendment was simply a way to gut the bill, and that "the reality is that this is not a bill that costs the Treasury money, but it does cost our country something of great value." Moran went on to detail the history of wild horses in the United States: At the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million roamed free. By the 1950s, their population dwindled to fewer than 20,000 due to poaching for pet food and human consumption in Europe and Asia. "I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the argument that is raised," Moran said. "But that is not an excuse not to pass this legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are killed." In the end, Price's proposal was easily defeated, with seventeen Republicans joining all but six Democrats in voting against it. Thus, by a vote of 186 to 238, the House rejected an amendment to require a bill to ban the slaughter of wild horses for meat to be revenue-neutral as a condition for enactment, and the legislation moved forward without the restriction. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
Providing the rules of consideration for a fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill, including a March 2008 deadline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 1591)/On passage This vote was on adoption of the rules for consideration for an "emergency" supplemental spending bill for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other measures. The appropriations bill - $124.2 billion for fiscal 2007 that included language calling for the redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008 - was in the form of a conference report, a compromise package put together by lawmakers from the House and Senate after both chambers had passed similar but not identical versions of the various pieces of legislation combined in this measure. In addition to $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference report also included $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief efforts, $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. The bill was controversial primarily because it included a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008 if the president could certify that the Iraq government is meeting certain benchmarks and by the end of 2007 if he could not. Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said, "After four years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the nation's course in Iraq." The ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), called the conference report "a policy of failure." "It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war," Dreier added. Dreier said that the conference report was simply a "political charade," as President Bush threatened to veto any measure including a timetable for withdrawal, meaning Congress would have to reconsider the funding bill without that language the following week. Regardless, Democrats were adamant about putting House lawmakers on record, even though they acknowledged in advance that they didn't have the necessary two-thirds of the House to override the president's promised veto. House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) said the intent of the legislation was to send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States will not be a permanent occupier of that country. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, he said, the president and Congress will have to find "a mutually agreed way of extricating ourselves from what has most assuredly become an Iraqi civil war." The funding bill passed by a relatively close vote of 218 to 208. Thirteen Democrats bucked their party's leadership and voted against the measure, while only two Republicans broke party ranks and supported it. Nonetheless, a fiscal 2007 emergency spending bill that included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq passed the House and moved to the Senate. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
Providing for consideration of the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill, including a March 2008 deadline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 1591)/On adoption of the rules package (H. Res. 332) This vote was on adoption of the rules for consideration for an "emergency" supplemental spending bill for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other measures. The appropriations bill - $124.2 billion for fiscal 2007 that included language calling for the redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008 - was in the form of a conference report, a compromise package put together by lawmakers from the House and Senate after both chambers had passed similar but not identical versions of the various pieces of legislation combined in this measure. This resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. The underlying bill to which the rules package would govern debate of was controversial because it included a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008 if the president could certify that the Iraq government is meeting certain benchmarks and by the end of 2007 if he could not. In addition to $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference report also included $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief efforts, $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. Debate about the rules package was entirely focused on the contents of the legislation itself, specifically the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said, "After four years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the nation's course in Iraq." The ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), expressed his "strongest opposition to both this rule and the underlying conference report," which he described as implementing "a policy of failure." "It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war," Dreier added. On an almost complete party-line vote, the House passed the rules of consideration for the conference report. Only one Republican voted with all but three Democrats in passing the resolution. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 195, the House adopted the rules package for a fiscal 2007 supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008, and the paved the way to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
Expanding the number of federal loan programs available to small businesses (H.R. 1332)/Motion to recommit with instructions make small businesses determined by the Small Business Administration to have been adversely affected by the minimum wage hike eligible for federal loans This vote was on an amendment to a bill to expand the number of federal loans that are available to small businesses and reduced the loan costs to borrowers. Republicans motioned to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to allow small businesses that the Small Business Administration (SBA) determines have been adversely affected by the recent minimum wage hike to qualify for a federal loan program called Community Express. Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) offered the motion to recommit to make what he said was "an important point about how we treat small businesses, the engine that drives much of our economy and creates many of our jobs in this country." The underlying legislation to which Republicans were seeking to amend would make permanent a the Community Express Program, which provides loans up to $250,000 to businesses which are owned by groups such as women, minorities, veterans, or socially or economically disadvantaged individuals. According to McCrery, the bill does not define what it means for a business owner to be "economically disadvantaged.'' McCrery's proposal would require the SBA to consider as economically disadvantaged "those business owners that can demonstrate that they have been adversely impacted by an increase in the federal minimum wage." Republicans said they offered the measure as a way to compensate for the fact that the House did not approve a tax relief package to small businesses most impacted by an increase in the minimum wage. (See Roll Call 16.) Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) responded that if McCrery was "so concerned about the state of small businesses in our country," why has he consistently voted against amendments she has proposed in the past to reduce the costs of the small business loan program? "The problem with the gentleman from Louisiana is that he doesn't believe that the minimum wage should be raised, and that 10 years is not long enough," Velazquez continued, referring to the last time the minimum wage was raised. "So by supporting this motion to recommit, you are voting against providing relief to small businesses. What we are doing with this bill is reducing up to $50,000 in fees to borrowers in this country. That is real relief." A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Republican support for the motion to recommit was unanimous, and two Democrats joined them in voting for it. It did not have the votes to pass, however, and a motion to send a bill expanding the number of federal loans available to small businesses and reducing the fees for borrowers back to committee with instructions to allow businesses "adversely affected" by the recent minimum wage hike to qualify for a special program for certain businesses failed on an almost party-line vote. By a vote of 197 to 224, the House rejected the measure, and the underlying legislation moved towards a final up-or-down vote without the amendment. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 330 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 1332, to improve the access to capital programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
Providing new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers (H.R. 363)/Motion to recommit with instructions to add language giving priority to grants to expand domestic energy production and coal-to-liquid technology This vote was on an amendment to a bill to provide new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers. Republicans motioned to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to give priority to grants to expand domestic energy production and coal-to-liquid technology. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) made the motion to recommit because he said the country "must encourage new innovations in domestic energy supply." He said that the legislation he was seeking to amend "already emphasizes the need for increased science and engineer research grants, especially with regard to our nation's young people," but what it did not address, in his view, was "the need for further diversification of our energy sources." Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) acknowledged that the motion was designed to peel off supporter among Democrats from states with coal interests. "This is a call to my fossil fuel Democrats, my coal Democrats, to address the need of our energy security issues," Shimkus said. Democrats complained that they were not given the "courtesy" of seeing the motion to recommit until seconds before it was introduced by Republicans - as they would have if Republicans had offered it instead as a straight-up amendment. "But, with that said, we will accept this motion, and we will consider it in conference where it can be considered under the light of more scrutiny," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), referring to the House-Senate conference committee that is convened after legislation passes both chambers in order to iron out any differences between the two versions. By offering this amendment as a motion to recommit, Republicans were able to do what they may not have accomplished otherwise, which was bring coal interests to the table during the conference committee. Had the Democratic leadership seen the text of the motion in advance - as would have been required during a regular amendment process - it likely would have prevented the measure from being offered on the House floor through parliamentary maneuvers in the rule outlining consideration of the bill. The Republican attempt to attract sufficient support from coal-state Democrats and side-step the Democratic leadership worked, however, and 75 Democrats voted for the motion, in addition to all but five Republicans. Thus, on a vote of 264 to 154, a motion to send legislation authorizing new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers back to committee with instructions to add language requiring priority to be given to grants to expand domestic energy production and coal-to-liquid technology passed the House, and the legislation was amended to reflect the change. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
Providing new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers (H.R. 363)/Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) amendment to authorize $281 million in scholarships for undergraduates specializing in science, technology, engineering or math This vote was on an amendment to an education bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers. Proposed by Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the amendment would authorize $281 million from in fiscal 2009 through 2013 to create a new scholarship program for undergraduates who are specializing in science, technology, engineering or math; whose family income is less than $75,000 per year; and who maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average. "I offer this bipartisan amendment to build the pipeline for our country's future teachers, scientists, engineers and researchers by proposing 2,500 scholarships each year of full tuition to any state university or college," Gillibrand said, adding, "having a home-grown, educated workforce will be crucially important to the future strength of America's economy." Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) said he while he is usually supportive of merit scholarships, the program Gillibrand proposed would be "duplicative" to an almost identical program within the Department of Education. The president's 2008 budget requested $1.2 billion for that program, Hall said, adding: "We don't need to add another $281 million scholarship program at another agency that achieves essentially the exact same thing." Democratic support for Gillibrand's amendment was unanimous, however, and 26 Republicans joined them in voting to approve the measure. Thus, on a vote of 254 to 165, the House approved an amendment to education legislation aiming to foster math and science education and research that would create a $281 million scholarship program available to students who specialize in science, technology, engineering or math. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
Providing for consideration of a bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers (H. Res. 318)/On adoption of the rules package This vote determined the rules for debate for an education bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers, establish a new presidential science award, and create a new office to recommend funding for federal scientific research efforts. Additionally, the legislation would require the National Science Foundation to allocate at least 3.5 percent of its research money to young-scientist programs. The measure was proposed in response to a 2005 National Academies of Sciences report warning that without increased funding for math and science education, the United States would be likely to lose technology jobs to other nations. This resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) pointed out that the rules package made in order all three amendments that were submitted for consideration to the Rules Committee. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) nonetheless questioned "the need once again for a structured rule when an open rule could have been granted for consideration of this bill." So, despite his support for the underlying legislation, he urged his colleagues to oppose the rule. Regardless of which party happens to be controlling the House, the majority often aims to control the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor (that weren't pre-approved by the Rules Committee) because such amendments take up floor time that detracts from the majority's ability to quickly move through its agenda. Democrats were unanimous in their support for the rules package, and Republicans were unanimous in their opposition. Thus, on a completely party-line vote of 219 to 187, the House approved the rules for consideration for a bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers. Despite their objections to the rules package, the vast majority of Republicans ended up voting in favor of the legislation itself, and it went on to pass easily. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
Providing for consideration of a bill to authorize $1.5 billion in scholarships and continuing education for math and science teachers (H. Res. 327)/On adoption of the rules package This vote determined the rules for debate for an education bill to fund $1.5 billion in scholarships and continuing education for math and science teachers through fiscal 2012. Among other provisions, the legislation would provide $664 million in scholarships for those seeking undergraduate degrees in math and science who commit to teaching those subjects in "high-need" schools. The measure was proposed in response to a 2005 National Academies of Sciences report warning that without increased funding for math and science education, the United States would be likely to lose technology jobs to other nations. This resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) pointed out that the rules package made in order all of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee - of which there were only two, both offered by Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) nonetheless said he was "disappointed" that the Rules Committee didn't allow for a totally open rule, meaning that any and all amendments could have been offered on the House floor. "And I frankly view this as another opportunity of the promises made by the new majority that were wasted with this bill," Hastings added. Regardless of which party happens to be controlling the House, the majority often aims to control the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor (that weren't pre-approved by the Rules Committee) because such amendments take up floor time that detracts from the majority's ability to quickly move through its agenda. Democrats were unanimous in their support for the rules package, and only one Republican voted against it. Thus, on a party-line vote of 220 to 188, the House approved the rules for consideration for a bill to provide scholarships and continuing education for math and science teachers, and the legislation moved toward a final vote. Despite their objections to the rules package, the vast majority of Republicans ended up voting in favor of the legislation itself, and it went on to pass easily. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/On passage This was the final vote on a bill to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. The legislation would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. Although the board of directors would not have to abide by the vote, the architect of the bill, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said shareholders should nonetheless have an opportunity to express their views. The legislation would also require companies to disclose executive severance pay plans in the event of an acquisition, merger, consolidation or proposed sale. The bill was prompted by increased attention to the multimillion-dollar compensation packages awarded to top corporate executives, a practice that particularly enrages its critics when the company's performance has been poor. Republican opponents of the legislation maintained that it was an unnecessary government intrusion into private business, and many worried aloud that the bill would serve as a stepping-stone for binding shareholder votes in the future. Many Republican critics also said Congress should observe the result of regulations put in place last year by the Securities and Exchange Commission requiring greater corporate disclosure of compensation packages before considering legislation. The bill, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said, "constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector." "The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new federal mandate on publicly held companies," Sessions continued, "but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing 'excessive' executive compensation." Frank responded that "letting people who own the company vote on information that the SEC has required the company to put forward as to whether or not they approve or disapprove that that's what the people they hired should be paid is not at all intrusive." "We think it has had a reasonable effect in moderating corporate excesses," Frank added. Despite the vocal Republican opposition, 55 Republicans ended up voting for the legislation, joining all but five Democrats in passing the bill. Thus, on a vote of 269 to 134, the House approved a measure requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Motion to recommit with instructions to clarify the nonbinding nature of the vote This vote represented Republicans' last attempt to modify a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) moved to recommit the bill with instructions, which would have sent the legislation back to committee in order to be amended to include language clarifying the nonbinding nature of the shareholder votes on executive pay. The legislation Republicans were seeking to alter would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. A company's board of directors could disregard the shareholders' say, but supporters of the bill, including Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that was unlikely. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. Frank said repeatedly during the debate that "'This bill does not do what it does not do,'" meaning that the shareholder vote would be strictly advisory. "I hope he is right," Feeney said. "Rather than hope, though, I offer this motion to recommit in order to be certain and to protect the directors in their discretionary exercise of their duties." More specifically, Feeney said he wanted to make sure that no court would consider a board of director's refusal to follow the shareholders' advisory vote as a breach of the board's duties. He added that he didn't care if the provision was redundant. "We do a lot worse here than redundancy. As Chairman Frank often advises, the law is filled with redundancies, and when Members oppose language in language in bills because they are redundant, they are typically being disingenuous." Frank responded that "never has the willingness of the minority to abuse the process for purely political ends been truer than today," pointing out that Republicans had offered seven amendments to the bill under what's known as an open rule (meaning no relevant amendments were barred) and that very similar language to Feeney's was already in the bill after Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) successfully added it in committee. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It is usually offered during legislative debates under what are known as closed rules, meaning few or no amendments are allowed. Frank continued: "If the Members thought that the bill that we had voted on and which they had every chance to amend needed further amendment, the democratic procedure, the procedure that shows respect for the process, would have been to file an amendment. Members on the other side had every opportunity at the committee and in this open rule fully to debate this and to offer amendments. They chose not to. They chose instead to legislate by ambush." Majority Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the motion to recommit, while all but one Republican voted for it. Thus, on party-line vote of 184 to 222, the House rejected a Republican attempt to send legislation requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives back to committee with instructions to clarify that such votes would be nonbinding, and the legislation moved towards a final vote without the provision. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to require a study on whether the requirement would hinder a publicly traded company's ability to compete for executive candidates; if the study found that it did, the shareholder vote would not be required This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would have required the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct a study on whether separate, non-binding shareholder votes on executive pay would hinder publicly traded companies' abilities to compete for the best available executive candidates. If the commission were to find that it would, the shareholder votes outlined in the underlying bill would no longer be required. The legislation Price was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. A company's board of directors could disregard the shareholder's say, but supporters of the bill, including Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that was unlikely. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. "I think that this amendment gets to what the consequences of this underlying bill are," Price said. "It would ensure that this legislation will not compromise fair competition and a level playing field for publicly traded companies." Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) responded: "I think this amendment makes clear how radical an idea the minority party thinks democracy is, whether it is in corporations or in government, and how wary they are of voting, whether in corporations, by shareholders or in politics." Democratic opposition to Price's amendment was near unanimous, with only two Democrats voting in support. Twenty-four Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 162 to 242, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have nullified the effect of the bill if the SEC determined it would have a detrimental impact on the ability of publicly traded companies to compete for top executives, and the legislation moved forward without the provision. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) amendment that would exempt companies that tie executive pay to performance This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), the amendment would have exempted companies that tie executive pay to performance. The legislation Putnam was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. Putnam's amendment would have exempted companies from having to conduct a shareholder vote on executive pay if the majority of the executives' compensation were subject to revocation for individual poor performance of that of the company. This kind of pay structure is known as nonqualified, deferred compensation. "Those that have poor performance forfeit some of their compensation," Putnam said. Putnam said he offered the amendment because Democrats were using as a rationale for the bill the presupposition that pay for top executives is disconnected from their performance. "I would argue that if you believe that, then you should support this amendment that focuses on performance and encourages greater accountability," he added. "My amendment gets to the heart of shareholder frustration, which is that if a CEO fails to fulfill their fiduciary duties, then they should be held accountable." Frank rose to opposed the amendment on grounds that "it intrudes the Congress into the internal pay decisions of the corporation." "We are strictly, scrupulously, completely neutral as to how the corporations pay their CEOs and others. We simply say that the market should work, that these shareholders should decide," Frank continued. In Frank's words, the underlying legislation, which he drafted, would create a "uniform, legally enforceable right" for shareholders to have a direct say in the compensation of the corporation's top executives. Democratic opposition to Putnam's amendment was near unanimous, with only one Democrat voting in support. Twenty-three Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 160 to 240, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have exempted corporations that provide the majority of each of their top executive's pay in the form of nonqualified, differed compensation, and the legislation moved forward without the exemption. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) substitute that would replace the legislation with statement by the House that the SEC's rulemaking on executive pay was adequate This vote was on replacement text for a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the measure was what's known as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, meaning if enacted, it would replace the entire text of the bill with a finding stating that the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) 2006 ruling requiring the disclosure of executive compensation to shareholders provides a "complete and adequate mechanism for shareholder approval" of executive pay. The legislation Price was seeking to strike would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. Price related what he and many Republicans consider excessive federal regulations as the reason why an increasing number of U.S. companies are moving oversees, and stated that Congress should not add to the regulatory burden. In 2006, the SEC ruled that publicly traded companies to publish executive compensation packages, including stock options and bonuses. "My amendment is a vote for transparency," Price said. "It is a vote for disclosure over increased government expansion and regulation. A vote against this amendment will increase the incentives for companies to go from public to private and to move from onshore to offshore." Frank said the amendment was simply a ruse. It would simply "let people vote against the bill without voting against the bill," he said. "Again, the effect of this amendment is exactly, exactly the same as voting 'no' on the bill. Why would you vote for an amendment that says you don't need a bill instead of simply voting `no'?" Democratic opposition to Price's amendment in the nature of a substitute was unanimous. Thirty-four Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 148 to 257, the House rejected an attempt to kill legislation requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives, and the measure moved forward intact. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) amendment to require pension plans to reveal to their beneficiaries how they voted This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the amendment would have required that pension plans, which own large blocks of publicly traded stock, disclose to their plan members how they voted on executive compensation packages of the companies they invest in. The legislation McHenry was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. "I think it is important that the managers of those pension funds disclose to the actual owners of those retirement funds, those pension funds, how their managers cast their votes," McHenry said. "Union leadership or pension fund leadership should have to inform their shareholders how they cast votes on their behalf. I think that is a matter of openness and transparency." McHenry pointed out that mutual funds already have to disclose their votes on such matters to their members. Frank actually agreed with McHenry on principle, but said he opposed the amendment because he didn't want to limit the disclosure requirement to pension funds, and because the scope of this legislation (and House rules regarding the relevancy requirement for amendments) limited the scope of amendments that could be attached, a broader requirement could not have been attached to this bill. "I agree on the principle that a fiduciary's vote should have to be made public, but I wouldn't want to limit it only to pension funds," Frank said. He added that he would be happy to hold hearings on the subject. Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) added that "a broader amendment, were it germane to this bill, would probably be received favorably by all of us because we believe that fiduciaries in general should be reporting to the people that they are representing." But by limiting it only to pension plans, many other fiduciaries, including foundations and family trusts, would be excluded "that should have the same obligation," Watt said. "And singling out pension plans in this context I think is the wrong thing to do." Democratic opposition to McHenry's amendment was near unanimous, with only one Democrat voting in support. Seventeen Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 164 to 236, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have required pension funds to disclose how they voted to beneficiaries, and the legislation moved forward without the requirement. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) amendment to exempt companies whose directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), the amendment would have exempted companies whose directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders. The legislation Campbell was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. Campbell said that during committee hearings on the bill, the witnesses stated they preferred that the reforms Congress sought on behalf of shareholders be accomplished through a democratically elected board of directors - which approve the pay packages of top executives - rather than an explicit vote on executive compensation by shareholders. "All six witnesses preferred that to this very prescriptive executive compensation proposal," Campbell said. "Because, as we discussed earlier, that would actually give shareholders more rights, through the board, to express their displeasure with a company for excessive executive compensation or simply executive operations that they don't like: for a poor performance, for a bad union contract, for whatever they wanted to express their displeasure more effectively by voting against people who were proposed to be on the board." Frank accused Campbell of being disingenuous in his intent, saying that if Campbell really wanted the substance of his amendment enacted - more shareholder say regarding the boards of directors of publicly traded companies - he would have filed it as separate legislation. As it were, Frank said, such legislation would have much more difficult time of passing that the bill to which he was seeking to amend. "If he wants to file a bill to give shareholders the right to vote by a majority for directors, and I think there has to be further change, then I would be happy to guarantee a hearing," Frank said, adding, "I think it's going to be hard enough to get even this through." "We have had people who said this is way too much. I do not think the gentleman speaks for his party in being supportive of something that will be far more opposed by a broader segment," Frank continued, explaining that he would not want to sacrifice the bill he crafted by attaching an amendment he knew would cause more Republicans to vote against the legislation on final passage. Democratic opposition to Campbell's amendment was near unanimous, with only two Democrats voting in support. Twenty-two Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 161 to 241, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have exempted companies whose directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders, and the legislation moved forward without the exemption. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) amendment to require shareholder votes on executive compensation packages only when pay exceeds the industry average by 10 percent This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), the amendment would have limited the scope of the underlying bill to instances where executive pay exceeded the industry average by 10 percent. The companies within the same industry to which the executives' pay would be compared would also have to have a comparable total market capitalization. The legislation Garrett was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. Garrett said without his amendment the legislation was "excessive" and "interventionist." He said his proposal would simply install a trigger that would have to be met before companies would be required to allow shareholders a vote on executive compensation packages. Garrett's proposal would have tasked the Securities and Exchange Commission with deciding which companies meet the requirements laid out in the amendment. "Essentially my amendment seeks to limit the required votes to instances where the disclosed excessive compensation in question grossly exceeds the norm and provides a quantitative guideline for what constitutes the norm and what constitutes gross excess," Garrett said. "If the underlying bill were to pass as it is currently drafted, we will be forcing literally thousands of public companies across this country to conduct shareholder votes on every single pay package for every single CEO of every single public company all the time." Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) rose to oppose the amendment on grounds that it would require a complex calculation by the SEC and would undermine the purpose of the legislation. "One of the first and most fundamental reasons why we oppose this amendment is because it is cleverly designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is basically to gut this bill because it is totally unenforceable," Scott said, adding, "we should not single out any companies say if it is 10 percent of this or that, even if you could define the rather complicated formula that you have. What we are saying is every stockholder, every company with shareholders publicly traded, should have that opportunity to weigh in and have a say on the compensation packages." Democratic opposition to Garrett's amendment was unanimous, and 23 Republicans joined them in opposition. Thus, on a vote of 155 to 244, the House rejected an amendment would have limited the scope of a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives to instances where executive pay exceeded the industry average by 10 percent, and legislation allowing shareholders a nonbinding vote in the pay of top executives moved forward without such a limitation. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) amendment to prohibit shareholders' votes from being counted if they spent money trying to influence the votes of others without disclosure This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), the amendment would have prohibited a shareholder's vote from being counted if the shareholder spent more than a minimal amount of money trying to influence the votes of others and did not fully disclose those activities to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The legislation Sessions was seeking to amend would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility. Sessions described his amendment as a way to provide "sunshine and transparency for shareholders so that there is full disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence their vote on this new congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution." He said the purpose was not to impede the ability of organizations to influence the shareholder votes on executive pay but simply to provide everyone with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote. The amendment would prompt the SEC to set a minimum spending threshold that would trigger the disclosure requirement. "If an individual wants to spend more than this de minimis amount and not disclose their identity to shareholders, they are still perfectly able to do so," Sessions continued, saying that their votes simply would not count. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said the amendment was designed to close down public discourse and conversations between shareholders about executive pay. Miller said Session's amendment would effectively silence individuals who donate money to a campaign aimed at swaying non-binding votes on executive pay. "So what you are really doing here is, you are trying to chill the speech and freeze the speech by putting them and holding them responsible for the disclosure that they may not have any control over," Miller said. "They may know they just don't like that executive compensation or they want a discussion of it. They don't necessarily know the activities engaged in to influence the vote." After Miller's lengthy discourse opposing the amendment, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded with a two-sentence observation about Republicans' definition of democracy, which, he said, "has recently frequently included throwing votes away." To which Miller responded: "You mean those 13,000 in Florida that are missing?" referring the disputed results from the 2000 election. Democratic opposition to Sessions' amendment was nearly unanimous. All but two Democrats voted against it, and all Republicans present but three voted for it, not enough to muster a majority. Thus, on a party-line vote of 177 to 222, the House rejected an amendment prohibiting shareholders' votes from being counted if they spent money trying to influence the votes of others without disclosure, and legislation requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages proceeded without the provision. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
Emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (H.R. 1591)/Motion to pick conferees and instruct them to include language requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops form Iraq by August 2008 This vote was on a motion to select lawmakers from the House to be appointed to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the two chambers' respective versions of a supplemental war-spending bill. The appointment of the conferees also carried instructions to insist on House-passed language to require a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008. This vote represented a Republican attempt to force an up-or-down vote in the House on the withdrawal timetable and force many previously uncommitted Democrats to take what Republicans thought was a politically risky stand on the war In order for a bill to become law, it must pass both the House and the Senate in identical forms before being signed by the president. If the two chambers pass differing versions of legislation, what's known as a conference committee is convened to hammer out the differences between the two bills and draft consensus legislation, which then must in turn be approved by both the House and Senate. In their individual versions of legislation funding the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both chambers included language that would require the pullout of combat troops from Iraq, but the House and Senate differed on the timetable for withdrawal and whether the timeframe would be binding. The House-passed spending bill would require combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of August 2008. The Senate set a non-binding goal of the end of March 2008. The House's version was also more restrictive in how it would allow the secretary of Defense to use the military in that country after the redeployment of troops. Both House and Senate bills totaled more than $123 billion for the continuing war effort. President Bush vowed to veto the measure if it contained any war restrictions. Most House Republicans also opposed a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, calling it a defeatist strategy. Democrats said it was past time for a change of course in the war. Only one Republican, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), joined all but nine Democrats in voting for the motion. (Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio voted "present.") Thus, on a vote of 215 to 199, the House voted to instruct conferees to a House-Senate committee ironing out differences in a $123 billion war supplemental spending bill to insist on language requiring a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2008. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 1495)/Motion to recommit with instructions to amend the bill to require the secretary of the Army to promote the use of hydroelectric power and prevent the removal of dams for environmental purposes This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing almost $15 billion over the next five years for backlogged Army Corps of Engineers public works projects. Republicans sought to amend the bill to require the secretary of the Army to inventory, develop and maintain hydroelectric projects and make it difficult to remove hydroelectric dams for any reason, including for environmental purposes. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) proposed the amendment in the form of a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit with instructions seeks to send the bill back to committee for the purpose of making specific changes, in this case adding language requiring the secretary of the Army (who oversees the Army Corps of Engineers) to prioritize the development and maintenance of hydropower. Walden said he offered the proposal because of "the issue of global warming and America's energy independence," as hydropower creates virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment would require the Army secretary to quantify the effects of removing a particular dam on the costs of energy to consumers, as well as how much energy would need to be imported in order to replace it. Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) rose to oppose the amendment on several grounds, the first of which being an agreement between Democrats and Republicans within his committee to not take action on new items that were not already included in a version of the legislation that was proposed in the previous congressional session. "This proposal is not only new, but it is massive, it is huge, it is not a study of potential effects," Oberstar continued. "The language at the very outset prohibits any action that may be proposed, as is being considered along the Snake River, to remove dams for environmental purposes. "This motion goes well beyond the intent of the Water Resources Development Act. It goes beyond the bipartisan agreement we have in bringing this bill to the floor. It authorizes unlimited projects without consideration of environmental impacts or consideration of taxpayer expense," Oberstar concluded, adding that the committee could consider Walden's proposal in future legislation. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. As such, votes on motions to recommit are usually party-line affairs, and this was no exception. Republicans unanimously supported the motion, and Democrats unanimously opposed it. Thus, on a vote of 194 to 226, the House rejected a Republican move to send a water projects infrastructure bill back to committee with instructions to include an amendment that would have required the secretary of the Army to prioritize hydropower projects, and a bill to authorize almost $15 billion worth of public works projects by the Army Corps of Engineers went forward without the requirement that would have prevented the removal of dams for environmental purposes. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
Increasing quarterly estimated tax payments for those with adjusted gross incomes of more than $5 million (H.R. 1906)/On passage This vote was on companion legislation to a bill to give the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives and permanently expand the number of seats the House by two to 437. (See Roll Call 231.) This legislation would increase the quarterly estimated tax payments for people with gross adjusted incomes of more than $5 million. The tax increase was designed to more than offset the cost of the two new lawmakers' offices and staff. The 1974 Budget Act requires that those costs be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget (unless the House specifically votes to waive the act). The Democratic leadership chose to bring the tax package up as a separate measure rather than rolling it into one bill because of a failed effort to pass two similar measures together as one bill in March. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered sufficiently relevant to attach. This served as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (See Roll Call 180.) In order to avoid that problem again, Democrats separated the voting-rights bill and the tax legislation into two individual measures that would be immediately attached after the tax bill was passed. The tax legislation would require affected taxpayers to make estimated tax payments equal to 110.1 percent of their previous year's taxes or 90 percent of their anticipated taxes for this year, whichever was less. Under current law, those taxpayers were required to pay 110 percent of their previous year's taxes in an advanced payment. Democrats such as Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) maintained that the legislation would not increase taxes for any individual, but instead changes "in a very minor way" the estimated tax payments that wealthy individuals (those with incomes of more than $5 million a year) are required to pay quarterly. "No one will pay more taxes under the bill," Lewis said. "It makes a technical timing change to tax payments made by these individuals. H.R. 1906 is critical to the pay-as-you-go pledge of this Congress." Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) disagreed, saying that the measure was simply a back-door tax increase, representing "the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases." "Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5 million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO," he said. (Pay-as-you-go rules are also known as PAYGO.) "The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor, roaring with laughter all over the country." English said Democrats would have had more credibility had they simply found a couple of million dollars to trim in a federal budget that runs in the trillions. Fourteen Democrats joined all but three Republicans in voting against the legislation, but the Democrats still had the votes to pass the bill. Thus, by a vote of 216 to 203, the House approved a minor change to the way wealthy individuals estimate their quarterly tax payments, and the measure was attached to companion legislation giving residents of the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1905)/On passage This vote was on final passage of a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The legislation would give the 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., a voting representative in Congress. Currently, citizens of D.C., who pay federal income taxes and fight in the armed forces, instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor. In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. (The number of Representatives in the House would permanently increase from 435 to 437.) This was done to make the bill party-neutral. Utah is a reliably conservative state, and the at-large district would likely be filled by a Republican lawmaker, whereas D.C. could be expected to send a Democrat to Congress. In addition, the bill would also give Utah another vote in the electoral college for the 2008 presidential election. Utah was chosen to offset the D.C. seat because the state missed getting an additional representative in the last round of redistricting by only a few hundred residents. The bill would expand the number of seats in the House by two, from 435 to 437. The bill would also give Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College for the 2008 election since electors are apportioned on the basis of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has. Many Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state. "The District was never meant to have the same rights as states," said Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.). Goodlatte also maintained that giving Utah an at-large seat in addition to the state's three congressional districts would allow the state's voters to cast two votes for Congress. Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else, and pointed out that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that the population of the District would rival that of several states. "I view this as an issue of race because there are so many of color in this city who are not fully represented," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who drafted the bill, said the crux of the issue was not a constitutional one. Davis said the debate was not about "what Congress can do" but instead "about what Congress is willing to do." In the end, 22 Republicans joined with all but six Democrats in voting to pass the measure. Thus, by a final vote of 241 to 177, the House passed a bill giving citizens of D.C. a full voting Representative in the House. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1905)/Motion to recommit with instructions to include language providing for expedited judicial review This vote was on a Republican amendment to a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) moved to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to immediately send the bill back to the House floor with an amendment providing for expedited judicial review of the legislation. Legal action would have to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and that court's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. The bill had what's known as a non-severability clause, which means that if any provision were to be invalidated by a court, all remaining provisions would also be invalid. The legislation Republicans were seeking to amend would give the 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., a voting representative in Congress. Currently, citizens of D.C., who pay federal income taxes and fight in the armed forces, instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor. In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. The number of Representatives in the House would also permanently increase from 435 to 437. Many Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state. Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who drafted the bill, said the crux of the issue was not a constitutional one. Davis said the debate was not about "what Congress can do" but instead "about what Congress is willing to do." A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Such motions usually command total or near-complete party unity, even if individual lawmakers later break ranks with their respective party in voting on the legislation. Despite support for the underlying bill from within Republican ranks, the motion divided the House neatly among party lines, typical of such procedural votes. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the Republican effort to send the bill back to committee with instructions to include language allowing for expedited judicial review. Republicans unanimously supported the motion, but the minority didn't have the votes to pass it. Thus, by a vote of 193 to 227, the House rejected a Republican attempt to amend a bill giving citizens of D.C. a full voting rights to allow for expedited consideration of its constitutionality by federal courts, and the legislation moved forward without the provision. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
Providing for the consideration of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H. Res. 317)/On adoption of the rules package This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed. The 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor. In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. The rule also outlined the consideration for a separate but related tax measure that would increase the quarterly estimated tax payments for people with gross adjusted incomes of more than $5 million. The tax increase was designed to offset the cost of the two new lawmakers' offices and staff. The 1974 Budget Act requires that spending increases be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget (unless the House specifically votes to waive the act). The Democratic leadership chose to bring the tax package up as a separate measure rather than rolling it into one bill because of a failed effort to pass two similar measures together as one bill in March. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered sufficiently relevant to attach. This served as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (See Roll Call 180.) In order to avoid that problem again, Democrats separated the voting-rights bill and the tax legislation into two individual measures that would be immediately attached after the tax portion was passed. To do this, Democrats needed to waive the Budget Act for the passage of the voting-rights legislation, a proviso that was incorporated into the rules package under consideration in this vote. So, in effect, this vote reflected the polarity between the parties on the underlying legislation to provide a full, voting Representative for the citizens of D.C. and an additional at-large seat for Utah. Many Republicans opposed giving the District of Colombia the same representational rights as states on grounds that it would be unconstitutional. Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else. Procedural votes such as this one often draw near or total unanimity within each party, even if individual lawmakers later decide to break ranks and vote against the party line on the underlying legislation. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the rules package, and all Democrats present but four voted for it, and the resolution passed 219 to 196. Thus, the House approved the rules for debate for a bill to give the citizens of D.C. full voting representation in Congress and paved the way for the legislation to be brought to the floor for a vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
Providing for the consideration of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H. Res. 317)/On ordering the previous question (end debate and prohibit amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor. Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. The rule also outlined the consideration for a separate but related tax measure that would increase the quarterly estimated tax payments for people with gross adjusted incomes of more than $5 million. The tax increase was designed to offset the cost of the two new lawmakers' offices and staff. The 1974 Budget Act requires that new spending be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget (unless the House specifically votes to waive the act). The Democratic leadership chose to bring the tax package up as a separate measure rather than rolling it into one bill because of a failed effort to pass two similar measures together as one bill in March. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered sufficiently relevant to attach. This served as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (See Roll Call 180.) In order to avoid that problem again, Democrats separated the voting-rights bill and the tax legislation into two individual measures that would be immediately attached after the tax portion was passed. To do this, Democrats needed to waive the Budget Act for the passage of the voting-rights legislation, a proviso that was incorporated into the rules package under consideration in this vote. So, in effect, this vote reflected the polarity between the parties on the underlying legislation to provide a full, voting Representative for the citizens of D.C. and an additional at-large seat for Utah. The motion to order the previous question, if passed, would have the effect of forcing a vote on the rules package, itself a parliamentary maneuver for the Democrats to sidetrack Republican opposition to the underlying bill. Many Republicans opposed giving the District of Colombia the same representational rights as states on grounds that it would be unconstitutional. Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else. Procedural votes such as this one often draw near or total unanimity within each party, even if individual lawmakers later decide to break ranks and vote against the party line on the underlying legislation. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the rules package, and every Republican present voted against the motion ordering the previous question. All Democrats present but three voted for the motion, and the resolution passed 219 to 196. Thus, the House moved to force an up-or-down vote on the rules for debate for a bill to give the citizens of D.C. full voting representation in Congress. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
Reforming federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/On passage This was the final vote on legislation to reform the way the Small Business Administration handles disaster assistance loans. The agency was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. The SBA loans represent the federal government's primary disaster-recovery assistance. The bill would increase the limit for disaster loans from $1.5 million to $3 million. Supporters of the bill lauded it as much-needed reform in time for the 2007 hurricane season. Republicans as well as President Bush complained that the legislation would expose taxpayers to unacceptably high costs. Chief sponsor Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) said the SBA was so ineffective following the 2005 storms that many entrepreneurs believed the agency was more hindrance than help. At one point, 204,000 applications for aid were unprocessed. Velazquez said her bill provided for disaster planning for the agency in order to "ensure they are prepared for a wide range of disasters." "This legislation will streamline SBA's loan processing and disbursement, as well as establish a bridge financing program," Velazquez said. "After the Gulf Coast storms, we saw entrepreneurs not only getting declined for loans but having to wait far too long for relief. This bill requires that within 36 hours of a disaster, qualified small businesses are provided with emergency small dollar financing, allowing them to stay in business and spur economic growth." Many Republicans supported the bulk of the legislation but found "fatal flaws" with two provisions they tried unsuccessfully to have removed from the bill, including language that would allow the SBA to provide $100,000 grants to small businesses affected by the 2005 hurricanes that were denied other assistance and another section that would allow 2005 hurricane victims to receive duplicate benefits as a way to compensate for an unforeseen interaction between federal and state programs that left many individuals without assistance. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) tried to have both sections removed but his efforts failed (see Roll Calls 222-223). Many Republicans maintained that those portions of the legislation were wasteful and undermined their support for the bill. "Unfortunately, the legislation has two critical provisions that, in my view, seriously undercut the otherwise excellent work of the committee in creating a structure that will ensure the SBA is prepared to respond irrespective of the scope of the disaster," Chabot said. Some Republicans also balked at the overall price tag of the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said would cost $347 million in from 2008 to 2012, not including the cost of the duplicate-benefits waiver. In the end, however, 40 Republicans broke ranks with their party and voted for the legislation. Democratic support was unanimous. Thus, on a vote of 267 to 158, the House passed a bill that would overhaul the federal government's disaster-loan program for small businesses, create a disaster-preparedness task force within the agency and double the limits for individual disaster loans to $3 million. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
Reforming federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/Motion to recommit with instructions to prohibit assistance to anyone convicted of a felony This vote was on an amendment to legislation aiming to reform the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program, which was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. Republicans motioned to send the bill back to committee with language prohibiting federal monies from going to anyone convicted of a felony or who has pleaded "no contest" to a felony. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Democrats charged that Republicans were using this parliamentary move as a ruse to kill the bill. "If you vote against this motion to recommit, you are saying to your constituents back home that you don't care if these federal funds go to convicted murderers, rapists, or kidnappers for that matter," Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), who authored the legislation, pointed out that McHenry didn't show up to the committee meeting during consideration of the legislation, in her view evidencing his false concern about the substance of the amendment. "This amendment merely restates what the Small Business Administration does and could actually have the opposite effect and allow more individuals with questionable character to get SBA disaster loans," Velazquez (D-N.Y.) continued. She added that the SBA already has such regulations in place as part of its standard operating procedure. "I will also note that adopting this motion will for all intents and purposes kill the bill, meaning a little over 1 month before hurricane season, the Federal Government will not have a plan to respond to disasters. Disaster victims will be trapped in the bureaucracy between [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and SBA," she added. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) furthered Velazquez's contention that the Republicans' motion to recommit was simply a poison pill. "This is an effort to kill this bill indirectly and without telling the public that that is what you are doing," Hoyer said. Nonetheless, eight Democrats crossed party lines and voted for the amendment, joining all but one Republican to vote "aye." It still wasn't enough support to pass, however, and the motion to recommit failed by a vote of 204 to 218. Thus, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited felons from receiving disaster assistance from the Small Business Administration, duplicating regulations already practiced by the SBA. Had the measure been included in the legislation, Democrats almost certainly would have opposed the bill, effectively killing it. So by rejecting the motion to recommit, the House kept a bill to reform how the SBA handles disaster loans alive and the legislation moved towards final passage. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
Reforming the program providing federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) amendment to remove language allowing the Small Business Authority the ability to offer grants of up to $100,000 for certain businesses severely affected by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma This vote was on an amendment to legislation aiming to reform the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program, which was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) proposed an amendment that would have removed the section of the bill allowing the SBA to offer grants of up to $100,000 for businesses severely affected by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma that had been denied conventional disaster loans. Chabot said such loans would represent "the height of fiscal irresponsibility." "The SBA's determination of whether to grant a disaster loan is based on its determination of reasonable assurance that you can repay your loan, which is a direct quote from the SBA's rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations," Chabot said. "Thus, if the SBA has denied a business a disaster loan, it already has determined that it is unlikely, for whatever reason, to repay the loan. In other words, its capacity as a viable business is seriously called into question." Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), who authored the legislation, said Chabot's amendment would "eliminate an important tool for helping otherwise viable businesses rebuild." "These businesses need financial assistance that the disaster loan program cannot provide," Velazquez continued. "This has been very narrowly tailored to ensure that grants only go to businesses located in communities most in need. Only a small number of businesses are expected to meet the requirements for one of these grants. If the administrator feels that grants are inappropriate, he will not need to exercise this authority. Furthermore, this program will not be carried forward to future disasters." Only one Democrat supported Chabot's provision, and 23 Republicans crossed party lines to oppose it. Thus, on a vote of 174 to 252, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated a portion of a bill that would allow the Small Business Administration to provide $100,000 grants to small businesses affected by the 2005 hurricanes that were denied other assistance, and legislation to reform the federal small-business disaster loan program went forward with the provision intact. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
Reforming federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) amendment to remove language allowing duplicate benefits for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes This vote was on an amendment to legislation aiming to reform the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program, which was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) proposed an amendment that would have removed the section of the bill allowing for the duplication of benefits for the 2005 hurricane victims. The language Chabot wanted to excise would have given the SBA authority to waive the existing prohibition on duplicate benefits in the case of victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma who were not fully compensated for damages to their homes from other sources. Chabot said the provision was wasteful as it would allow "a person to be compensated for the same damage twice." Democrats pointed out that the language was originally inserted in the legislation to correct a problem that occurred with federal assistance following the 2005 storms. Some individuals received federal grants through state-run programs such as the Road Home program in Louisiana, but because the SBA requires recipients to repay disaster loans when they receive other benefits, Democrats said many recipients of the SBA loans had to use their Road Home or other grants to repay the loans, leaving them strapped. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to Chabot's amendment, and 17 Republicans joined them in opposing it. Thus, on a vote of 178 to 246, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited victims of the 2005 hurricanes from receiving duplicate benefits that were designed to compensate for an unforeseen interaction with federal and state programs. Legislation aimed at reforming the federal disaster loan program for small businesses went forward without the provision. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Natural Disasters |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
Providing for the consideration of legislation to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H. Res. 301)/On adoption of the rules package This was the final vote on the rules for debate for a bill to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. The legislation would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package primarily because of their opposition to the underlying bill. The Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as an "open rule," meaning that virtually all amendments would be allowed on the House floor if they were relevant to the subject of the underlying legislation. In rising to support the rules package, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said it represented "a good, appropriate rule that allows any germane amendment to be debated and voted on by this body." "This rule is appropriate because it allows for real debate and for up or down votes on matters related to this bill," McGovern continued. "I believe this is a good process." He said he supported the underlying legislation because it "would allow the shareholders, those with the most vested interests, to express their approval or disapproval of a company's compensation practices." Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) rose to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation on grounds that the latter "constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector." "The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new federal mandate on publicly held companies," Sessions continued, "but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing 'excessive' executive compensation." McGovern replied that even if Sessions and his Republican colleagues opposed the bill, they could easily support the rules for consideration, as it allowed virtually any relevant amendment. As evidence for his assertion, McGovern pointed out that 10 of the 13 amendments offered were put forth by Republicans. This vote was on the adoption of the rules package. Even though 55 Republicans ended up voting for the legislation two days later, this procedural vote commanded almost total party unity, as is typical for such votes. Only one Republican voted against the rules package, and Democrats unanimously voted for it (even though five Democrats would go on to vote against the legislation itself). Leaders of both parties command the utmost discipline for these sorts of procedural votes but often give their members wider latitude when it comes to voting for or against the actual legislation. Thus, on a vote of 227 to 195, the House adopted rules of debate for legislation to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a nonbinding say in the compensation packages of top executives beginning in 2009. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
Providing for the consideration of legislation to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H. Res. 301)/On ordering the previous question (ending debate and preventing amendment) This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate for a bill to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. The legislation would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. Republicans opposed the rules package primarily because of their opposition to the underlying bill. The Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as an "open rule," meaning that virtually all amendments would be allowed on the House floor if they were relevant to the subject of the underlying legislation. In rising to support the rules package, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said it represented "a good, appropriate rule that allows any germane amendment to be debated and voted on by this body." "This rule is appropriate because it allows for real debate and for up or down votes on matters related to this bill," McGovern continued. "I believe this is a good process." He said he supported the underlying legislation because it "would allow the shareholders, those with the most vested interests, to express their approval or disapproval of a company's compensation practices." Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) rose to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation on grounds that the latter "constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector." "The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new federal mandate on publicly held companies," Sessions continued, "but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing 'excessive' executive compensation." McGovern replied that even if Sessions and his Republican colleagues opposed the bill, they could easily support the rules for consideration, as it allowed virtually any relevant amendment. As evidence for his assertion, McGovern pointed out that 10 of the 13 amendments offered were put forth by Republicans. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 226-199. Thus, on an almost completely party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a nonbinding say in the compensation packages of top executives beginning in 2009. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 103 Providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99)/Final vote on a resolution to set spending and revenue targets for the next five years This was a final vote on a $3 trillion fiscal 2008 budget resolution, which would set spending and revenue targets for the next five years. By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. The House Democrat's budget proposal - in keeping with pay-as-you-go budget rules -- was sufficient to allow inflationary increases in most programs as well as significant increases in education spending and veterans' benefits. In the words of Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), the Democratic budget represents "the first time in a very long time that Congress has before it a budget that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs of the American people." In the past six years the country has gone from having a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to looking at a $9 trillion dollar deficit, and growing, Sutton said, adding that the Republican stewardship of the budget process in past years "goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel. Our predecessors in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it." Republicans such as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said the budget resolution assumed increased taxes and didn't deal with the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby boomers, which will put an enormous strain on an already stretched entitlement system. "This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis," Sessions said. Although Republicans argued that the budget resolution assumes "the largest tax increase in American history," in the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), it actually assumes the same revenue as current law, under which the 2001 and 2003 income, estate and dividend tax cuts are set to expire after 2010. "This budget does not raise a penny in new taxes, not one," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Moreover, Hoyer said, the Republican alternative budget - which was put forth unsuccessfully as an amendment (see Roll Call 211) - proposed deep spending cuts that Republicans never sought to enact when they were in the majority. Most of the Democratic opposition to the budget resolution came from members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative House Democrats, and most of them waited to cast their votes until it was clear the measure had sufficient votes to pass. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) voted against the resolution because of its assumption of $195 billion in war funding for fiscal 2008 and 2009. "We are falling right into line with the president's plan for the war and his requests to fund it," he said in a statement released by his office. "The American people want the war to end now, not in 2008, and not in 2009." By a vote of 216-210, Democrats eked out a narrow but significant victory in passing the fiscal 2008 budget resolution that projected a $153 billion surplus in 2012 by strictly adhering to pay-as-you-go spending rules and putting off divisive decisions on how to deal with tax cuts set to expire in 2010 and the expected growth in entitlement programs as the baby-boom generation retires. (Also known as PAYGO, pay-as-you-go spending rules require that any new programs or tax cuts be offset in other parts of the federal budget by revenue increases or spending cuts.) Twelve Democrats joined all 198 Republicans present in voting against it. The measure then headed to a conference committee with the Senate, where Democrats were hoping for swift passage so they can move on to the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99), Ryan of Wisconsin substitute amendment offering the Republicans' alternative to the Democratic-drafted version/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on a Republican alternative to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution drafted by the Democratic majority. It was offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The budget resolution sets spending and revenue targets for the next five years. The Republicans' plan sought to pay for tax cut extensions by cutting Medicare and other entitlement programs by $279 billion over five years and freezing domestic discretionary spending. (There are two types of government spending: what's known as mandatory, which is determined by existing laws, such as Social Security and Medicare payments, and discretionary spending, which includes items such as highway projects and funding the military, which can fluctuate each year without other statutory changes.) The Republican budget proposal also accounted for about $400 billion less revenue than the Democrats' plan because it assumed that the 2001 and 2003 income, estate and dividend tax cuts would be extended instead of ending, as planned for in current law. The Republican budget also accounted for hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) after 2007, even though most Republicans want to see that tax curtailed. By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. Democrats saw their 2008 budget resolution as the beginning of a period of responsible fiscal stewardship after six years under a Republican Congress with a Republican president. Democrats pointed out that in the past six years the country has gone from having a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to looking at a $9 trillion dollar deficit, and growing. "It goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel," Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) said. "Our predecessors in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it." Republicans said the Democrats' budget increased taxes and didn't deal with the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby boomers, which will put an enormous strain on an already stretched entitlement system, just a few of the reasons they offered an alternative. "We don't believe we should tax, tax, tax and then tax more the American economy and the American family and the American workers," Ryan said. "We believe Washington has a spending problem, and that is why we are proposing to control spending, and that is how we achieve the balanced budget." Ryan said that despite Democrat objections, the Republican budget did not seek to cut as much as it sought to reform. "Are we cutting Medicare? No, we are not cutting Medicare. We are growing Medicare. We are growing Medicare, not as fast as it is currently scheduled to grow because we are reforming Medicare. And what do we do? We extend the solvency of Medicare," Ryan continued. The Republican substitute failed on a vote of 160-268. One Democrat joined 159 Republicans in voting for it, and 40 Republicans joined the Democratic majority in voting against it. Thus, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution went forward without a Republican-backed proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and balance the budget by freezing discretionary spending and cutting the growth of Medicare and other entitlement programs by $279 billion over five years. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Preserving Social Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
H. Con. Res. 99 (Fiscal 2008 Budget Resolution), Woolsey of California substitute amendment offering an alternative budget resolution authored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an alternative budget resolution proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is a member, to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The budget resolution sets spending and revenue targets for the next five years. The CPC's alternative budget resolution, offered in the form of a substitute amendment, would repeal tax cuts enacted in the past six years and move funding away from defense and war efforts towards domestic programs. By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. But the Progressive Caucus didn't feel that the Democrat leadership drafted budget resolution went far enough in supporting social programs and curbing defense spending. The Congressional Progressive Caucus' substitute amendment would set non-defense, domestic discretionary spending at $483 billion for fiscal 2008. By assuming the repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to households earning in the top 1 percent of income, the budget would project a $22.7 billion surplus by fiscal 2010. It would also eliminate certain corporate tax breaks and assume full funding for programs under the No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education law. Furthermore, it would assume funding for the Iraq war would end in 2007, while making veterans health care a mandatory spending program funded for fiscal 2008 at 130 percent of the fiscal 2005 level. Calling it the "peace and security budget alternative," Woolsey said the CPC's alternative would balance the budget "by the year 2010, which is 2 years ahead of the Democratic budget, 2 years ahead of the Republican substitute, and light years ahead of the administration's budget, a budget that doesn't balance anywhere in a 10-year horizon." The CPC's budget would cut $108 billion out of President Bush's defense spending request, "all the while keeping America safe," in Woolsey's words. The resolution would assume $395 billion on defense, which Woolsey said was "a lot of money." At the same time, the CPC alternative would increase domestic discretionary spending to $483 billion. "Our spending is $89 billion over the President, $58 billion over the Democrats, and if you can believe this, it is $33 billion more than the social justice groups have been asking for," Woolsey continued. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said the CPC's proposal was just one of "three different versions of essentially the same Democrat budget," all of which, he said, are "fiscally irresponsible." "They all promote the federal budget over the family budget," Hensarling continued. "Each one would represent the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America." By a vote of 81-340, the Congressional Progressive Caucus' proposed substitute budget resolution was rejected by the House. Eighty-one Democrats voted for the amendment, while 142 Democrats opposed it. The 81 Democrats who voted for it included many of the most progressive Democrats in the House. Opposition within Republican ranks was unanimous. Thus, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution went forward without an amendment by the CPC that would have tilted the federal budget away from defense and war spending towards increased spending on domestic programs. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res.), Kilpatrick of Michigan substitute amendment offering an alternative budget resolution authored by the Congressional Black Caucus/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an alternative budget resolution proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), of which Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) is a member, to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The budget resolution sets spending and revenue targets for the next five years. The amendment was cosponsored by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.). The CBC's alternative budget resolution, offered in the form of a substitute amendment, would repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and dramatically increase domestic spending, in contrast to the resolution outlined by the Democratic majority which would keep discretionary spending closer to inflation, with the exception of education funding and veterans' care. By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. But the CBC didn't feel that the Democrat leadership drafted budget resolution went far enough in supporting social programs. The CBC alternative projected a budget surplus of $141 billion by fiscal 2012 by assuming the repeal of certain tax cuts resulting in $319 billion in additional revenue over five years, which the resolution would direct toward deficit reduction as well as education, jobs and health programs. It would include tax increases for married couples with incomes above $200,000, for single filers above $170,000. "This budget changes our fiscal course from a sea of debt, deficit and despair to financial stability and responsibility," Kilpatrick said in a floor speech. "The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment confronts the crises faced by our senior citizens who will not have enough money to heat their homes in the winter or cool them in the summer; it will confront the crises faced by our veterans and those wounded warriors who do not have adequate health care, mental health treatment, or physical therapy; the Kilpatrick /Scott amendment to the budget continues the legacy of this Nation's historic mission of caring for the least of our sisters and brothers." Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) responded that the CBC's budget plan had the same flaws as the one introduced by the Democratic leadership. "They raise a lot of taxes, anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion just over the next 5 years," Ryan said. "We believe that we need to focus on spending and not on raising taxes." The CBC was able to collect 115 votes from House Democrats, a bare majority of the Democrats in the House; 113 Democrats and all 199 Republicans present voted against the amendment. The 115 Democrats who voted for the CBC's budget resolution included many of the most progressive Democrats in the House. Although the resolution failed by 115-312, the CBC achieved a symbolic victory by getting a majority of House Democrats to agree with the caucuses' budget priorities. Nonetheless, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution went forward without an amendment that would have increased domestic spending beyond what the resolution drafted by the Democratic majority sought. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
H.R. 835 (Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act)/On passage This was the third and final vote on a bill that would authorize through fiscal 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee programs, which provide grants for affordable housing for low-income Native Hawaiians as well as guaranteed loans to Native Hawaiian families living on homesteads. One week prior, the bill had been taken up with a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, which is basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 262-162, an insufficient majority to pass the measure under suspension of the rules. The Democratic leadership opted to bring the bill up again under regular order with what's known as a closed rule, meaning the bill couldn't be amended. Republicans were against the bill because they said it could have the indirect effect of conferring tribal status on Native Hawaiians, a group currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States. Many Republicans also said the bill was likely unconstitutional because directing money towards Native Hawaiians as a racial group could be considered discriminatory. Republicans opposed the rules package because of the prohibition on amendments. During committee markup of the bill, Republicans had tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to ensure that the legislation could not be interpreted as an indirect confirmation of tribal status, and they hoped to offer the same amendment on the floor. "That Constitution, as we know, in almost all cases is opposed to racial set-asides," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said. "So this disturbs many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle." Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) pointed out during debate on the House floor that the bill has always been relatively noncontroversial in the past. During the previous week's debate he decried "misconceptions or misperceptions" that made the bill controversial. In the end, 45 Republicans crossed party lines and voted with all but one Democrat present to pass the legislation. Thus, by a vote of 272-150, the House voted to approve a bill to authorize funding for programs aiming to help low-income Native Hawaiians find affordable housing. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
H. Res. 274, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1538 (Wounded Warrior Assistance Act)/On agreeing to the resolution This vote was on a measure to provide floor consideration for a bill to improve the care of wounded military service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation was prompted by reports of widespread instances of returning service members receiving inadequate or improper care, particularly at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The bill would add caseworkers and counselors to the military's medical system, increase the number of physicians and require the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department to improve coordination of the transfer of service members to the care of one bureaucracy to the other. "There is no doubt that the military medical system has been overwhelmed in meeting the demands of war over the past four years," Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said. The Pentagon has estimated that 25,000 service members have been injured in the conflict, many requiring long-term care. "Supporting our troops does not mean that you simply salute as you send them off to war, ask them to serve in sacrifice for our great country, but it also means that they are supported when they come home, their families are respected, and our wounded warriors receive superior health care for their physical injuries and mental scars," said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.). This resolution outlined what's known as a structured rule, meaning that only amendments previously approved by the Rules Committee would be considered in order. The rules package also provided for 1 hour and 20 minutes of debate, with time divided equally between each side. Although the House would go on to unanimously approve the underlying legislation, the rules package was opposed by some Republicans on grounds that it was too "restrictive," in the words of Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), and didn't allow Republicans to offer all of the amendments they would have liked Seventeen Republicans joined all 226 Democrats present in approving the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 243-179, the House outlined rules for floor consideration of a bill to improve care for wounded military service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
H. Res. 275, providing for the rules of consideration governing debate of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99)/On agreeing to the rules package This vote was on adoption of a rule outlining the floor consideration of a fiscal 2008 budget resolution, which would set spending and revenue targets for the next five years. By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. The rules for debate outline how much time will be allotted to each side, what amendments will be considered in order and what procedural motions will be allowed. The "rules package," as it is known, allowed for the introduction of three alternative budget plans, including proposals offered by the Republican Conference, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. The House Democrats' budget proposal - in keeping with pay-as-you-go budget rules that require any new spending to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget -- was sufficient to allow inflationary increases in most programs as well as significant increases in education spending and veterans' benefits. Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) rose to support the Democratic proposal and the rules package outlining its consideration by pointing out in the past six years the country has gone from having a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to looking at a $9 trillion dollar deficit, and growing. "It goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel," Sutton said. "Our predecessors in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it." The Democratic budget, she said, represents "the first time in a very long time that Congress has before it a budget that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs of the American people." Republicans such as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) rose to oppose the rules for consideration for the same reasons they opposed the underlying bill, because they said it increased taxes and didn't deal with the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby boomers, which will put an enormous strain on an already stretched entitlement system. "This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis," Sessions said. Although Republicans argued that the budget resolution assumes "the largest tax increase in American history," in the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), it actually assumes the same revenue as current law, under which the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire after 2010. "This budget does not raise a penny in new taxes, not one," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). On a complete party-line vote, Republicans unanimously opposed the rules package for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution, and Democrats unanimously supported it. Thus, by a vote of 229-197, the House approved the rules package and paved the way for the budget resolution to come to the floor, including final votes on the alternative proposals put forth by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and by the Republican Conference, as well as the original Democratic proposal FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
H. Res. 275, providing for the rules of consideration for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99)/Procedural motion to end debate and prohibit amendment This was a procedural vote on a measure to provide floor consideration for a fiscal 2008 budget resolution, which would set spending and revenue targets for the next five years. By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the process of appropriating money for the government to function. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. This motion was to order the previous question (a parliamentary tool to end debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule to provide for floor consideration of the budget resolution. The rules for debate outline how much time will be allotted to each side, what amendments will be considered in order and what procedural motions will be allowed. The "rules package," as it is known, allowed for the introduction of three alternative budget plans, including those offered by Republicans, the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. (There are two types of government spending: what's known as mandatory, which is determined by existing laws, such as Social Security and Medicare payments, and discretionary spending, which includes items such as highway projects and funding the military, which can fluctuate each year without other statutory changes.) The House Democrat's budget proposal - in keeping with pay-as-you-go budget rules that require any new spending to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget -- was sufficient to allow inflationary increases in most programs as well as significant increases in education spending and veterans' benefits. On a party-line vote, Republicans unanimously opposed the motion ordering the previous question, and all but one Democrat present voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 225-196, debate on the rules for consideration for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution ended and the rules package moved towards an up-or-down vote. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On Passage This was the final vote on legislation to authorize over $6 billion to improve bus and rail security in the United States. Hailed by one of its drafters, Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems, the bill would authorize $2.5 billion for rail, $3.4 billion for urban mass transit and $87 million for buses over the next four years. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly." Democrats said the bill would make the country safer, as it would require the Homeland Security Department to develop regulations for rail transportation of toxic materials and require operators to assess alternative routes as well as extend whistleblower protection to transportation employees. Republicans were critical of whistleblower protections included in the legislation. The House already passed similar protections barring retribution against employees who expose fraud, waste and corruption in an earlier bill that had yet to make it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto this legislation on account of the whistleblower provision, claiming that it would undermine the government's ability to protect information related to national security. The legislation was a marker for the House's position on transportation security in anticipation of a House-Senate conference committee on broader legislation to enact recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Putting this legislation to a vote was the Democratic leadership's way of getting the House on record with a majority-backed position on transportation security so that the chamber's representatives at the upcoming House-Senate conference committee could use the fact that the majority of the House supported the approach outlined in the bill as a negotiating point in talks over the larger 9/11 Commission legislation. The Senate version of that bill (S. 4) would authorize a total of $4 billion for transportation security, and the intent of this legislation was to give House negotiators firm footing to say that the House supported more funding for transit security. The legislation passed by a vote of 299-124, and thus the House approved funding for more than $6 billion in improvements to rail and bus transportation. Seventy-four Republicans joined all 225 Democrats present in passing the measure. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On motion to recommit with instructions This vote was on a procedural motion to amend a bill authorizing $6 billion over the next four years to improve transit security. Republicans successfully sought to include an amendment to give people who report suspicious activity on rail or bus lines immunity from lawsuits. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It's usually a symbolic vote, as the minority rarely wins. The Democrats almost always failed to pass motions to recommit under more than a decade of Republican rule in the House. But increasingly Republicans have been winning motions to recommit. When that happens, the bill is sent back to committee with instructions to include specific language outlined in the motion, and the change is then agreed to by voice vote on the House floor. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) moved to recommit the bill to the Homeland Security panel with instructions to include the amendment. He said during a floor speech that the amendment was prompted by an incident in November 2006 in which passengers on a U.S. Airways flight reported what they believed to be suspicious activity that resulted in six Muslim imams being removed from the plane. The removal prompted a lawsuit by the imams on grounds of what they believe to be discrimination, including a legal attempt to learn the identities of those who reported their activities as suspicious. King called such litigation "absolutely disgraceful." The citizens who reported them "acted in good faith," King said. The amendment would give legal immunity to any citizen who reports suspicious activity in good faith. Rep. Bernie Thompson (D-Miss.) said he was opposed to the language partially on procedural grounds -- Republicans did not make it available until minutes before it was introduced. The bulk of his objection was substantive, however, as he pointed out that the imams have not been charged with a crime, and thus "why shouldn't they be able to seek remedy in a court of law?" Thompson added that if people are profiled illegally, "they absolutely should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law." Furthermore, the language introduced by King did not define "good faith" sufficiently to prevent people from being singled out on the basis of their "religion, custom, or what have you." A majority of the House sided with King, however, including 105 Democrats. Most of the House's most progressive Democrats voted against it. Republicans were unanimous in support of the amendment. By a vote of 304-121 a bill to authorize $6 billion for transit security was amended to include language giving persons who report suspicious activity on a rail or bus line in "good faith" immunity from lawsuits. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), Cohen of Tennessee amendment to establish a program to minimize rail transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled/Revote on agreeing to the amendment This was a revote on an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 195) by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment was attached to a $6 billion transportation security bill. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to get things done. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) Cohen's amendment sought to require the federal government to coordinate with state and local governments to minimize the transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled. Every year, over 100,000 carloads of toxic chemicals and 1.6 million carloads of hazardous materials such as explosives and radioactive items are transported across the country by rail, Cohen said in a floor speech. Several derailments in 2007 and 2006 pointed to the dangers to local communities from such transport, Cohen added. "While rail is clearly the safest means of transport for such materials, we must work to ensure this transit is as secure, efficient and is as considerate towards the safety of our communities as possible," Cohen said. Cohen said his amendment would support the state and local communities that have enacted bans on the transportation of certain toxic substances through their areas, prompting litigation from the rail industry. The language of his proposal would require the Transportation Department to minimize the time and frequency such materials pass through communities. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.) said Cohen's amendment was a "do-good amendment that either does nothing or does harm." Lungren said the substance of the amendment was already covered in the bill and Cohen's addition would only tie the Transportation Department's hands by requiring the secretary to minimize the transport of such materials on rail only, "which will maximize the travel on our highways." Lungren said Cohen's amendment would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to have the Transportation Department minimize threats across different modes of transport. Cohen's amendment was approved the first time in the Committee of the Whole on a vote of 237-188. This time the vote was 234-184. Nine Republicans joined all but one Democrat in voting for it. Thus, legislation aiming to improve transit security went forward with an amendment that would require the Transportation Department to minimize the rail transport of hazardous materials that are dangerous when inhaled. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Railroads |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), manager's amendment by Thompson of Mississippi to give the Transportation Department control over administering bus and rail security grant funding/Revote on agreeing to the amendment This was a revote on an amendment offered by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 194) by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment was previously attached to a $6 billion transportation security bill. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) Thompson was a cosponsor of the legislation, and this amendment was what's known as "manager's amendment." In this case, the manager's amendment reflected compromise language that Thompson and Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) agreed upon after both panels had written their own versions of the transit security legislation. The principle disagreement was over whether the Transportation or Homeland Security department should distribute the funds outlined in the bill. The compromise language included in this amendment would give the Transportation Department control over administering the grants, which would still be technically housed in the Homeland Security Department. The latter would make funding recommendations based on the agency's vulnerability assessments, and both departments would audit the programs. Thompson hailed the legislation as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems and expressed his gratitude that the two committees were able to overcome the jurisdictional fights that had stalled the bill for weeks. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly." Many Republicans were also critical of strengthened whistleblower protections included in the manager's amendment. The House already passed similar protections barring retribution against employees who expose fraud, waste and corruption in an earlier bill that had yet to make it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto this legislation on account of the whistleblower provision, claiming that it would undermine the government's ability to protect information related to national security. Republicans were further opposed to the manger's amendment because it sought to prevent state and local first-responders ineligible to receive direct grant funding. Thompson's amendment was approved the first time in the Committee of the Whole on a vote of 224-199. This time the vote was 222-197, and as with the previous vote, three Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting "no." Thus, a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security went forward with previously passed compromise language that settled internal party squabbles as to how the grant money in the $6 billion transportation security bill was to be distributed. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
H.R. 1401(Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), Sessions of Texas amendment to prohibit Amtrak from using funds authorized by the bill on the 10 long-distance routes that have lost the most revenue/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) to a bill to authorize $6 billion to improve transit security. Sessions' amendment would prohibit Amtrak from using money authorized in the bill to add security measures, with the exception of fire and life-safety improvements, to the 10 long-distance routes that have lost the most revenue. "What this amendment does, and it does it very simply, is stop adding unnecessary costs to the 10 worst routes that already cost Amtrak $161 million a year," Sessions said during floor debate. "The worst route in Amtrak's system, called the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles, had a net loss of $20.4 million last year, or, on a cost basis to taxpayers, 25.5 cents per seat for every mile of that journey." The amendment, Sessions said, "provides the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the flexibility to waive this provision should that secretary deem that a security upgrade on one of these most unprofitable routes, or even a partial part of it, would be deemed to be critical to Homeland Security." "All in all, it says that if Amtrak wants to compete for the $4 billion worth of funds made available under this Act, they must ensure that they are being used for routes that cost the taxpayer less than 10.4 cents per seat over every single mile, a hurdle that is hardly unreasonable," Sessions continued. Democrats countered that the amendment would cause the federal government to fail in its obligations to protect its citizens. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said it was "baffling." "I ask the question of my colleagues, what is one life worth?" Jackson Lee asked. "What is one life worth that travels along the Nation's transit corridors, the intense Northeast corridor that deals with Amtrak long distance routes, 2 million people?" Amtrak is part of a system, Democrats maintained, and a security breech in one part of the system affects the integrity of the whole organization. Sessions failed to find a majority for his amendment, and 72 Republicans joined all but three Democrats in voting against it. Since Session's amendment lost by a vote of 130-299, the $6 billion transportation security bill went forward without his amendment prohibiting Amtrak from using funds from the legislation to update security measures on its least profitable lines. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
H.R. 1401(Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), Cohen of Tennessee amendment to establish a program to minimize rail transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) to a $6 billion bill to improve transit security. Cohen's amendment sought to require the federal government to coordinate with state and local governments to minimize the transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled. Every year, over 100,000 carloads of toxic chemicals and 1.6 million carloads of hazardous materials such as explosives and radioactive items are transported across the country by rail, Cohen said in a floor speech. Several derailments in 2006 and 2007 pointed to the dangers to local communities from such transport, Cohen added. "While rail is clearly the safest means of transport for such materials, we must work to ensure this transit is as secure, efficient and is as considerate towards the safety of our communities as possible," Cohen said. Cohen said his amendment would support the state and local communities that have enacted bans on the transportation of certain toxic substances through their areas, prompting litigation from the rail industry. The language of his proposal would require the Transportation Department to minimize the time and frequency such materials pass through communities. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.) said Cohen's amendment was a "do-good amendment that either does nothing or does harm." Lungren said the substance of the amendment was already covered in the bill and Cohen's addition would only tie the Transportation Department's hands by requiring the secretary to minimize the transport of such materials on rail only, "which will maximize the travel on our highways." Lungren said Cohen's amendment would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to have the Transportation Department minimize threats across different modes of transport. By a vote of 237-188, the House passed Cohen's amendment. Eleven Republicans joined all but one Democrat in voting for it. Thus, legislation aiming to improve transit security went forward with an amendment that would require the Transportation Department to minimize the rail transport of hazardous materials that are dangerous when inhaled. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Railroads |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), manager's amendment by Thompson of Mississippi to give the Transportation Department control over administering bus and rail security grant funding/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security. Thompson was a cosponsor of the legislation, and this amendment was what's known as "manager's amendment." In this case, the manager's amendment reflected compromise language that Thompson and Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) agreed upon after both panels had written their own versions of the transit security legislation. The principle disagreement was over whether the Transportation or Homeland Security department should distribute the funds outlined in the bill. The compromise language included in this amendment would give the Transportation Department control over administering the grants, although they would still be technically housed in the Homeland Security Department. The latter would make funding recommendations based on the agency's vulnerability assessments, and both departments would audit the programs. Thompson hailed the legislation as "an important milestone" in protecting the country's transit systems and expressed his gratitude that the two committees were able to overcome the jurisdictional fights that had stalled the bill for weeks. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly." Many Republicans were also critical of strengthened whistleblower protections included in the manager's amendment. The House already passed similar protections barring retribution against employees who expose fraud, waste and corruption in an earlier bill that had yet to make it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto this legislation on account of the whistleblower provision, claiming that it would undermine the government's ability to protect information related to national security. Republicans were further opposed to the manager's amendment because it sought to prevent state and local first-responders from receiving grant funding directly. Republicans unanimously opposed the multi-faceted amendment to the $6 billion transit security bill, and three Democrats joined them in voting "no." The Democratic majority had enough cushion to pass the amendment anyway, and by a vote of 224-199 the House passed compromise language that settled internal party squabbles as to how the grant money in the $6 billion transportation security bill was to be distributed. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
H. Res. 269, providing for consideration of H.R. 835 (Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act)/On agreeing to the resolution This was the second vote on a bill that would authorize through fiscal 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee programs, which provide grants for affordable housing for low-income Native Hawaiians as well as guaranteed loans to Native Hawaiian families living on homesteads. One week prior, the bill had been taken up with a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, which is basically a time-saving method used for relatively uncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 262-162, an insufficient majority to pass the measure under suspension of the rules. The Democratic leadership opted to bring the bill up again under regular order with what's known as a closed rule, meaning the bill couldn't be amended. Republicans were against the bill because they said it could have the indirect effect of conferring tribal status on Native Hawaiians, a group currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States. Many Republicans also said the bill was likely unconstitutional because directing money towards Native Hawaiians as a racial group could be considered discriminatory. Republicans opposed the rules package because of the prohibition on amendments. During committee markup of the bill, Republicans had tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to ensure that the legislation could not be interpreted as an indirect confirmation of tribal status, and they hoped to offer the same amendment on the floor. "That Constitution, as we know, in almost all cases is opposed to racial set-asides," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said. "So this disturbs many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle." Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) pointed out during debate on the House floor that the bill has always been relatively uncontroversial in the past. During the previous week's debate he decried "misconceptions or misperceptions" that made the bill controversial. In the end, 12 Republicans crossed party lines and voted with all but one Democrat present to pass the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 234-188, the House voted to approve the rules of consideration for a bill to authorize funding for programs aiming to help low-income Native Hawaiians find affordable housing. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
H. Res. 270, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On agreeing to the resolution This vote determined the rules for debate on a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security in the United States. Known as the "rules package," the resolution determined how much time each side would get to debate the measure, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed. The legislation this resolution outlined rules of debate for was hailed by one of its drafters, Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly." Many Republicans were also unhappy because the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee did not determine that all Republican-sponsored amendments would be allowed on the House floor. )On a party-line vote of 223-199, with only one Democrat joining every Republican present in voting "no," the House passed a rules package for a bill to authorize $6 billion over the next four years to improve transit security. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
H. Res. 270, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On ordering the previous question This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security in the United States. Known as the "rules package," the resolution determined how much time each side would get to debate the measure, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed. The legislation this resolution outlined rules of debate for was hailed by one of its drafters, Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly." Many Republicans were also unhappy because the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee did not allow all Republican-sponsored amendments to be offered on the House floor. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but two Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 222-199. Thus, the House moved towards a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a bill to authorize over $6 billion to improve transit security. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
H.R. 1591 "Emergency" supplemental appropriations for the ongoing war in Iraq/On passage This vote represented the first time either chamber of Congress voted to set a timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of the ongoing war in Iraq. It was a nail-biter until the end, as more than a dozen Democrats refused to vote for a measure that would continue to fund the war at least until 2008, and it wasn't clear whether the Democratic leadership would be able to find a majority. The seventh "emergency" spending bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term, the bill would send another $124.3 billion towards the Iraq war effort while taking the first steps toward ending the 4-year-old conflict. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government.) A group of progressives calling themselves the "Out of Iraq" caucus had attempted to offer an amendment that would have limited the use of funds in the supplemental to only protecting soldiers on the ground and the "safe and complete withdrawal" of all troops by the end of 2007 instead of agreeing to fund the war through the end of 2008. But the proposed amendment -- offered by California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters -- was rejected by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee, thus preventing it from coming to a vote on the floor. The bill contains a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning in 2008, a move opposed almost uniformly within the Republican Party. Bush promised to veto the measure if it is sent to his desk. The Democratic leadership described the bill as a significant effort towards ending the war, even as critics within the party decried the measure for sending more money to a war they believe is already lost. Woolsey, one of the 14 Democrats to vote against the measure, said that the language in the bill meant to reign in Bush's conduct of the war had no enforceability and was thus meaningless. Knowing Bush's veto awaited, the debate within the Democratic Party became one of tactics. The Democratic leadership asserted that voting to give Bush additional funding for the war, with restrictions and a timetable with withdrawal, was the best way to solidify the opposition to the war in a way that could win majority support. Others, including many in the "Out of Iraq" caucus, stated that another year of a failed war was unacceptable. By contrast, the majority of the Republicans in Congress support Bush's planned troop surge as a tactic to gain control over the country's growing insurgency. "Rather than sending more troops into the chaos that is the Iraqi civil war, we must be focused on bringing the war to an end," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "The American people do not support a war without end and neither should this Congress." Republicans also blasted what they deemed "pork-barrel" projects aimed at sweetening the bill for undecided Democrats. The supplemental included billions for programs unrelated to the war effort, including monies for shrimpers, spinach growers and peanut farmers. In the end, the House voted 218-212 to pass the supplemental appropriations bill and continue funding the war, but with a specific timeline to begin redeployment of American troops. Any measure containing a withdrawal timeline awaited a threatened veto by Bush, which would require the supplemental appropriations process to start all over again. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
H. Res. 261 Providing for consideration of a bill (H.R. 1591) to make "emergency" supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq/On agreeing to the resolution This was a procedural vote that laid the groundwork for the House's consideration of a mid-year funding bill to appropriate money for ongoing military operations in Iraq. The seventh "emergency" spending bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term, the bill would send another $124.3 billion towards the Iraq war effort while taking steps toward ending the 4-year-old conflict. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government.) This resolution, often referred to as a "rules package," laid out the rules for consideration for how the supplemental funding bill would be taken up on the House floor. It dictated how much time each side was to be given for debate, and more importantly, what amendments were to be considered in order. The issue of amendments was a critical one among House Democrats, as many Progressives oppose any more funding for the war. A group of Progressives calling themselves the "Out of Iraq" caucus attempted to offer an amendment that would have limited the use of funds in the supplemental to only protecting soldiers on the ground and the "safe and complete withdrawal" of all troops by the end of the year. That amendment -- offered by California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters -- was rejected by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee, which drafted the rules for debate without allowances for the three to bring their amendment to the floor. (Of the three, only Waters ended up voting against the rules package, however.) The overall bill contains a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning in 2008, a move opposed almost uniformly by Republicans. And because the funding measure contains language requiring troop withdrawals, Bush has promised to veto the measure if passed. Likely because it was a procedural vote, which usually command near-total conformity within each party's respective ranks, even Democrats who wanted to vote on an amendment to begin troop withdrawals this year instead of waiting until next year ended up voting with the majority in passing the rules package. The resolution passed easily, with one Republican (North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones) voting with 224 Democrats in passing the measure. Five Democrats, including two very progressive members, voted against the procedural resolution. The final vote was 225-201, setting the rules for debate for a bill to provide an additional $124.3 billion for the Iraq war with a timetable for withdrawal. The supplemental appropriations bill was thus readied for floor consideration, where it wound up passing by an extremely close vote (see Roll Call 186). MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
H. Res. 260, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1433, (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act)/On agreeing to the resolution governing the rules of debate This vote determined the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The 572,000residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have voting privileges on the House floor. Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed. The rules package included a tiny, obscure tax provision that sought to offset a $2.5 million price tag that the Congressional Budget Office put on the bill. Because of the House's "pay-as-you-go" spending rules, the Democratic majority had to decide whether to try to waive those rules (and risk loosing that vote) or offset the cost elsewhere in the federal budget. They chose the latter, and inserted language into the rules for debate that would offset the price of the bill with a .003 percentage point increase to a federal withholding tax. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered relevant enough to attach. This would later serve as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (The rules package included a provision allowing the majority to put off the vote on the bill for an undetermined period.) In addition to granting residents of D.C. a voting representative in Congress, the underlying legislation would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. This was done to make the bill party-neutral. Utah is a reliably conservative state, and the at-large district would likely be filled by a Republican lawmaker, whereas D.C. could be expected to send a Democrat to Congress. Utah was chosen to offset the D.C. seat because the state missed getting an additional representative in the last round of redistricting by only a few hundred residents. The bill would expand the number of seats in the House by two, from 435 to 437. The bill would also give Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College for the 2008 election since electors are apportioned on the basis of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has. "I hope that those who have not supported the bill can come to see that extending voting rights to residents of Washington, D.C., is the right and savvy thing to do," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.), a cosponsor of the bill. "The people's House should have room for all Americans to be represented." Many other Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, however, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state. Votes on rules packages are almost always party-line votes, and this was no exception. All but one Republican voted against the rules for consideration, and all Democrats voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 226-195, the House passed rules for debate for a measure to grant the residents of the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. Because of subsequent Republican parliamentary maneuvers, however, the bill would not come for a final vote for another month, as Democrats worked out a way to bring up the legislation without a provision allowing semi-automatic weapons in the District that was designed by Republicans to kill the bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
H. Res. 260, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1433, (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act)/On ordering the previous question This was a procedural motion on a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have voting privileges on the House floor. Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. This was done to make the bill party-neutral. Utah is a reliably conservative state, and the at-large district would likely be filled by a Republican lawmaker, whereas D.C. could be expected to send a Democrat to Congress. Utah was chosen to offset the D.C. seat because the state missed getting an additional representative in the last round of redistricting by only a few hundred residents. The bill would expand the number of seats in the House by two, from 435 to 437. The bill would also give Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College for the 2008 election since electors are apportioned on the basis of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has. "I hope that those who have not supported the bill can come to see that extending voting rights to residents of Washington, D.C., is the right and savvy thing to do," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.), a cosponsor of the bill. "The people's House should have room for all Americans to be represented." Many other Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, however, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state. As is almost always the case on motions ordering the previous question, the vote almost perfectly divided the two parties. All of the Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 228-198. Thus, the House moved towards a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
H.R. 835, Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act/On motion to suspend the rules and pass This vote was on a bill that would authorize through fiscal 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee programs, which provide grants for affordable housing for low-income Native Hawaiians as well as guaranteed loans to Native Hawaiian families living on homesteads. The bill was taken up with a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, which is basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure cannot be amended and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. Although no Republicans stood up on the House floor and spoke against the legislation, clearly there was opposition from within Republican ranks, as a majority of Republicans voted against it. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) alluded to what he referred to "misconceptions or misperceptions" that made the bill controversial. "There are some issues with respect to questions about favoritism or reverse discrimination, et cetera," Abercrombie said, referring to the limitation on the grants and loans to "Native Hawaiians." Abercrombie also pointed out that the bill was the result of a request of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, under the leadership of Governor Linda Lingle, who is a Republican. Abercrombie said that the issue was institutional in nature, meaning that governor-appointed commissioners are obligated to bring these issues to the Congress for final adjudication because of the unique legal status of the Hawaiian homelands. Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) also rose to support the measure, saying that reauthorizing the legislation allows Native Hawaiian families living at or below 80 percent of the median income level to finance homes and is funneled through programs such as Habitat for Humanity. Although no Republicans spoke out against the legislation, 162 Republicans voted against it. Thirty-four Republicans joined all 228 Democrats present in voting for the bill. Although the final vote of 262-162 was far beyond a simple majority, the suspension rules under which the measure was considered required a two-thirds majority. (In order to pass under suspension of the rules, the bill would have had to receive 283 votes.) The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act thus failed on this round, although the House leadership would bring it up again a week later under normal rules and it would pass easily. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
H.R. 1227, Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007/On passage This was a vote for final passage on a bill to provide housing assistance to the residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast. The measure would prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units. The legislation would also grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return and remove restrictions on the approximately $110 billion already appropriated for hurricane recovery. The final vote came after two days of debate during which Republicans tried unsuccessfully to limit the scope of voucher programs (Roll Call 168) and made a successful attempt to amend the bill to prohibit those convicted of drug or violent crimes from living in rebuilt public housing in New Orleans (Roll Call 171). The bill, sponsored by Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), would extend the disaster housing voucher program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) until January 2008. The House also adopted an amendment by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) to extend a separate housing assistance program run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency until the end of 2007 and then transfer eligible families into the Section 8 housing assistance program run by HUD (Roll Call 166). Many Republicans opposed passage of the bill on the grounds that Congress and the American taxpayers had already been adequately generous to those who lost their homes in the 2005 storms affecting the Gulf Coast. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) said that Democrats were using the disaster relief bill to work on "other agendas," such as expanding the Section 8 federal housing assistance program. Moreover, he said, Congress has already authorized more than $110 billion for recovery efforts. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) further stated that extending housing assistance vouchers does not give people an incentive to "get moving" to get their lives back together. Democrats countered that such arguments were ludicrous and that the legislation simply made up for the failed efforts during the previous legislative session to adequately jump-start recovery in the region and help people get back on their feet. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded that the residents displaced by the hurricanes are not "appropriate candidates for tough love. These are not people who are in some situation through their own lack of character. They are people who were displaced by a great physical disaster." Frank added that unless the federal government helps to fix the problem of lack of housing, the region is going to continue to be plagued by a "chicken-and-egg" problem of unemployment and lack of housing, as employers are moving out of the region because there are not enough places for workers to live. All 230 Democrats present, joined by 72 Republicans, voted to pass the legislation. By a final vote of 302-125, legislation to extend housing assistance to residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes and prevent the demolition of damaged public housing until more can be built passed the House and moved on to the Senate. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
H.R. 1227, Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007/On motion to recommit with instructions This vote was on a motion to send a bill to provide housing assistance to residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes back to the Financial Services Committee with instructions that the bill be amended to include language barring households that include convicted drug dealers, sex offender or perpetrators of other violent crimes from occupying rebuilt public housing in New Orleans. Furthermore, the amendment would require that priority for public housing be given to employed individuals who agree to contribute to community service. The motion was made by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), who represents a suburban area outside of New Orleans. The underlying bill would prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units. The measure would also grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return and remove restrictions on the approximately $110 billion already appropriated for hurricane recovery. In support of his amendment, Jindal said that the government "must make certain that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. This includes ensuring that our public housing system does not force residents to live in unacceptable conditions, and replacing the old public housing units with safe, habitable and affordable housing for the future." Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) said it appeared to him that the amendment was just a restatement of current law, and thus unnecessary, but if it was a change to current housing law, then it was just a change for the residents of New Orleans, in which case it was unreasonable and unfair. Frank pointed out that Jindal and the Republicans gave the majority Democrats no notice on the substance of the motion, and it appeared to him that Jindal could not answer his questions as to its exact content. "I don't think this is very well considered," Frank concluded. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Fifty-five Democrats joined all but one Republican present in voting to send the housing assistance bill back to the Financial Services Committee with specific directions to include Jindal's amendment. The motion to recommit with instructions was thus successful, and a bill to provide housing relief to residents affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes was amended to prohibit convicted drug dealers and perpetrators of other violent crimes from occupying rebuilt public housing in New Orleans. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
H.R. 1227, Al Green of Texas amendment to allow low-income residents in areas affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes to receive Section 8 housing grants/Revote on agreeing to the amendment This was a revote on an amendment offered by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 166) by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment was attached to a housing assistance bill for those affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to get things done. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.) Green's amendment was approved the first time in the Committee of the Whole on a vote of 246-184. The amendment would extend Federal Emergency Management Agency housing assistance for evacuees of the 2005 hurricanes until the end of 2007, after which time evacuees would be transferred into a temporary Section 8 voucher program for rental assistance. (Landlords would not be required to accept the vouchers.) The revote yielded much of the same result as the first vote, as 13 Republicans joined all 229 Democrats present in voting for it. The final tally was 242-184, onlyfour votes different from the first roll call. Thus, a housing assistance bill for those affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast maintained a previously added provision that would extend FEMA housing assistance until the end of 2007 and then allow displaced residents who qualify for Section 8 rental assistance to receive it from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
H R 1227. Neugebauer of Texas Amendment to delete provision in Gulf Coast housing relief bill that would give families receiving temporary disaster vouchers Section 8 vouchers instead/On agreeing to the amendment This amendment, proposed by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), sought to strike a section of a bill to provide housing assistance to Gulf Coast residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes. The section Neugebauer wanted to strike would allow low-income residents who are receiving temporary disaster vouchers through FEMA to qualify for the Section 8 voucher program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Neugebauer said in floor debate that "this is not the place to debate whether we need to add additional vouchers to the voucher section 8 program." Neugebauer said that the legislation as it was written would not just extend disaster vouchers but essentially make them permanent, by putting those in need of temporary relief in a permanent program. "The problem making these vouchers permanent is we are giving preference to [displaced] folks that are living in communities where other people have been in line" for the same Section 8 assistance, Neugebauer added. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded that exactly the opposite was true. The newly created Section 8 housing vouchers would only be "permanent" so long as the 12,000 recipients of FEMA assistance who prior to the hurricane were in the HUD program require aid. (Housing advocates estimate that 30,000 to 37,000 people are receiving disaster-related housing assistance of some kind.) "But as the people in that category no longer need them or are ineligible, [the vouchers] will disappear," said Frank. "This is a separate category of vouchers for people who were victims of disasters." The real question, Frank said, was whether the federal government was willing to punish those currently receiving FEMA aid who previously received Section 8 assistance for what amounted to the government's failure to get its act together. If the government were to let the aid run out at the end of 2007, the displaced low-income residents would be competing with non-displaced low-income residents for Section 8 aid. "Abolish this separate category as of December 31, and then these people will be competing with other people," Frank said, exactly the scenario Neugebauer said he wanted to prevent. Fourteen Republicans joined all but one Democrat present in voting to defeat Neugebauer's amendment. Thus, by a vote of 247-185, a bill to provide housing assistance to those affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast went forward with a provision that allows low-income residents displaced by the natural disasters to qualify for Section 8 rental assistance. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
Motion to allow Taylor of Mississippi to participate in floor debate for the rest of the day after a ruling that he had impugned another Member's character This motion followed a heated debate between Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) over an amendment to a bill providing housing assistance to Gulf Coast residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes. Proposed by Price, the amendment would have removed language in the bill allowing cities and states receiving federal disaster aid to use other government grants to meet requirements to match the federal money with local government contributions. In Price's words, the amendment "would make certain that local and state individuals have a responsibility, have an incentive to make sure these programs are sound." Taylor was incensed with the suggestion that Gulf Coast states would misuse the funds, and he told Price that he should "have the decency" to visit Mississippi "before you hold them to a standard that you would never hold your own people to and you have failed to hold the Bush administration to." The acting chairman of the House ruled that Taylor had impugned Price's character by questioning his decency and required that the words be stricken from the record. House rules dictate that Members whose words have been struck are prohibited from participating in floor debate for the rest of the day. In order for Taylor to continue participating in floor, a majority of the House had to vote to allow it. By a vote of 265-160 the House moved to do just that, and Taylor was allowed to participate in the rest of the day's debate. Taylor later admitted that his words were "a little bit too strong" but reaffirmed his opposition to the amendment. "How does a town that is gone come up with matching funds?" Taylor asked. (Price's amendment ended up failing by a vote of 98-333.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
H.R. 1227, Al Green of Texas amendment to allow low-income residents in areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast to receive Section 8 housing grants/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) that would extend housing assistance provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma through the end of 2007. After that time, the amendment would give housing assistance to evacuees through the housing-assistance program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The bill which Green sought to amend would prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units. The underlying measure would also grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return and remove restrictions on the approximately $110 billion already appropriated for hurricane recovery. Green said his amendment was meant to take FEMA out of "the Katrina long-term housing crisis" and put the low-income residents still receiving FEMA housing assistance in a federal program run by HUD that is better equipped to meet their needs. The amendment would allow people living in FEMA trailers who are eligible for section 8 housing vouchers to receive them. (Section 8 refers to a federal program providing assistance to low-income families in the form of rental assistance vouchers.) Landlords would not be required to accept the vouchers, however, as they are under the law governing other Section 8 housing assistance. Green said that the reason there is a housing crisis is because 7 out of 10 households receiving rental assistance have annual incomes below $15,000 per year and over 40 percent have health care problems that impact upon their abilities to work. Green said that FEMA has responded to this crisis by "moving real people with real problems from one deadline to another deadline." The amendment, he added, has a budget score of zero, meaning that it has no cost to the taxpayer. Rep. Judy Biggert (D-Ill.) said that turning FEMA assistance into Section 8 housing concerned her. Deadlines for assistance to run out, she said, encourage families to make decisions about their future rather than continuing the expectation that the federal government will provide for them. All Democrats presented voted with Green to pass his amendment, and they were joined by 14 Republicans. By a vote of 246-184, the House voted to grant Section 8 housing vouchers to displaced low-income residents after their extended FEMA assistance expires. Thus, a bill to prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units was amended to include a provision extending FEMA housing assistance until the end of 2007 and then allow displaced residents who qualify for Section 8 rental assistance to receive it from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
H.R. 1227, Biggert of Illinois amendment to limit the number public house units to be rebuilt to the number that were occupied before Hurricane Katrina/On agreeing to the amendment This amendment, offered by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), sought to limit the reconstruction of public housing projects in New Orleans to those units that were occupied before Hurricane Katrina. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) said the amendment was necessary because the bill requires the rebuilding of all public housing units that existed before the storm, regardless of whether they were occupied, and recreating large numbers of public housing units would hamstring recovery efforts and "create huge pockets of poverty." House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said such arguments are ludicrous. "This is an issue not about whether you live in the existing units. This isn't about rehabbing existing units," he said. "This is as to what is the obligation to replace the units." Frank said that Biggert's amendment would reduce by 2,000 the number of units that would have to be built before tearing down things that now exist. "All we are saying is do whatever destruction you want after you have found places to live." The final tally was an almost entirely party-line vote, with all but two Democrats voting to defeat Biggert's amendment, and all but 2 Republicans voting for it. By a vote of 198-232, Biggert's amendment was defeated, and a bill to provide housing assistance to residents of areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes went forward without a requirement to limit the number of reconstructed public housing units to the number occupied before the storms. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
H.R. 1227, Hensarling of Texas amendment to require federal housing recipients in the region affected by the 2005 hurricanes to work 20 hours per week/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) that would require all those receiving federal aid as part of a bill to improve access to affordable housing in the region affected by the 2005 hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast to work at least 20 hours per week. Hensarling offered his amendment as a way to bring the federal housing aid under the bill in line with welfare reforms Congress instituted a decade ago. "Now we have the same chance to extend this," Hensarling said on the House floor, "to empower people who have been impacted by these terrible gulf coast hurricanes, some who have been stuck in public housing for 10, 15 or 20 years." He added that "no one is required to get a job if the jobs don't exist" and there would be 12 distinct categories of work-related activities to satisfy the requirement, including attempting to find work, vocational education, community service and, in some instances, providing child care services to others. Democrats replied that the amendment was misguided and racist. "It is about race and poverty," said Rep. David Scott (D-Ga). After the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, "Nobody said, 'Make them work before we help them.' " Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the amendment was unnecessary and improper: "It is not the time that should be utilized to try and do something that really has already been taken care of in welfare reform. We should be about the business of returning people to their homes." Thirty-nine Republicans joined all but four Democrats present in defeating Hensarling's amendment. By a vote of 162-266, the measure was defeated and a proposal to require that recipients of federal aid work 20 hours per week was not added to a bill aiming to provide for housing assistance to those affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
H. Res. 254, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low income families affected by the 2005 hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast/On agreeing to the resolution This vote outlined the rules for debate on legislation to supply $237 million worth of tax credits to help replace low-income housing units destroyed by hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. Co-sponsored by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the bill would prohibit the demolition of public housing that is damaged or otherwise uninhabitable until the Department of Housing and Urban Development develops a plan to replace it. It gives the agency until July 2008 to provide adequate housing and authorizes the department to provide relocation assistance to those displaced families. The rules for consideration determine how much time is awarded to each side for debate and what amendments would be considered in order. The "rules package," as it is known, was drafted by the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee and was a closed-rule, meaning that only amendments outlined in the rules package could be brought up on the House floor. In contrast, open rules allow any lawmaker to offer amendments on the House floor, regardless of whether they were approved by the Rules Committee. "I think it is appropriate to point out that the majority is failing to live up to its commitment to run the House in an open and fair manner," said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). "I believe it is fair to say, if the majority is serious about their commitment to openness, they should allow for open rules on the underlying legislation and the supplemental appropriations bill which is coming forth soon." Diaz-Balart went on to explain that Republicans were concerned that the bill goes beyond its stated intent of helping hurricane victims and essentially turns a temporary disaster voucher program into a permanent entitlement. In response to those concerns, Republicans offered several amendments to the Rules Committee, "however, the majority once again closed them out," prompting Republicans to oppose the rule. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) responded that "this pretty much is an open rule," and the only amendments that were prohibited were not "germane" (relevant to the bill) or had been previously voted down on the floor. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded further that although it was not "a fully open rule," it was far more open "than any that the majority allowed in the previous Congress on major legislation from the Financial Services Committee." In the end, two Republicans joined all 226 Democrats present to pass the rules of debate for a bill to provide housing relief to victims of the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. Thus, by a vote of 228-190, the House approved the rules package and moved the measure one step towards debate and passage. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act/On motion to recommit with instructions This vote was a procedural motion to amend a bill requiring federal agencies to minimize their use of no-bid contracts. Republicans sought to prohibit the federal government from contracting with colleges that allow private employers to recruit on campus while at the same time as denying similar access to U.S. military recruiters. The overall bill would limit no-bid contracts of $1 million or more to one year, unless the head of a federal agency determines that an extension was necessary. Democrats say the legislation is necessary after what they deem to be abuses of no-bid federal contracts by firms supplying goods and services in Iraq and on the Gulf Coast after the 2005 hurricanes. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It's usually a symbolic vote, as the minority rarely wins. The Democrats almost always failed to pass motions to recommit under more than a decade of Republican rule in the House. The Republicans' motion to recommit was aimed at remedying what they maintained are unfair exclusions of military recruiters at colleges and universities. Many of such institutions rely on grants from the federal government to fund their programs, so the amendment Republicans sought to add would use that leverage to ensure that colleges and universities that accept such monies give equal access to military recruiters as they do private employers. Many schools have barred the presence of military recruiters at recruiting events, and some have cited opposition to the war in Iraq as the rationale. Critics countered that Republicans were trying to mask the military's inability to recruit sufficient numbers of young people to fight in an increasingly unpopular war. The Republicans' argument ultimately won out, however, as they drew enough Democrats to pass the motion to recommit with instructions and thus amend the bill. One hundred and fifteen Democrats joined all 194 Republicans present to pass the measure. By a vote of 309-114, the motion to recommit with instructions was agreed to and thus the bill to revise federal contracting policy was amended to prohibit colleges that contract with the federal government from denying military recruiters access to their campuses when that same access is provided to private companies. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
H RES 242. Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act/On agreeing to the resolution This vote set the rules for debate for legislation aimed at increasing the oversight of government contracts and fixing procurement issues at the Defense Department and other federal agencies. The bill requires federal agencies to minimize their use of no-bid contracts and limits the duration of large noncompetitive contracts to one year. The resolution, commonly known as a "rules package," outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Republicans wanted to offer amendments that the Rules Committee did not allow. Many Republicans also opposed the underlying legislation because they believe it would unduly burden the entire federal contracting sector, instead of just punishing the actions of a few "bad actors," in the words of Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). Democrats said the bill was necessary to restore adequate oversight to government contracts at the Defense Department, many of which - totaling billions of dollars -- have been handed out without a competitive bidding process. Procedural votes are almost always strict party-line affairs, and this one was true to form. All 222 Democrats present voted to approve the rules package, and all Republicans present but one voted against it. The total vote was thus 223-190, and the resolution outlining rules for consideration of a bill to require federal agencies to minimize their use of no-bid contracts and improve oversight of the procurement process passed the House, making way for the bill to come up for a vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
H.R. 985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/Stupak of Michigan amendment to include government-funded scientists among the federal employees granted whistleblower protections for exposing wrongdoing This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would extend whistleblower protections to those involved with the publication of federally funded scientific research. The underlying bill aims to make it easier for federal employees to expose wrongdoing, corruption and fraud without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. Stupak asserted at a news conference announcing his amendment that many cases have been documented of government officials suppressing the publication of federally funded research and prohibiting scientists from attending conferences. "Publication in peer-reviewed journals and participation at conferences is a key part of the scientific process, and when senior agency officials attempt to prevent these activities, it represents an attack on the integrity of government-funded research," Stupak said. He specifically cited the case of FDA whistleblower David Graham who was prohibited by his superiors from publishing the early warnings that the drug Vioxx was causing heart attacks and deaths. The drug was eventually taken off the market after 28,000 people who took the drug had heart attacks between 1999 and 2003, according to the FDA. FDA scientist and whistleblower David Graham estimated that Vioxx may have caused heart attacks in as many as 140,000 Americans, leading to as many as 55,000 deaths in the United States. Stupak's efforts were lauded by the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Federal scientists working to protect our health and safety must have the right to publish the results of their research," the organization said in a statement. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) rose to oppose Stupak's amendment on the grounds that it would allow federal researchers and scientists "to publicize the results of their federally funded research without any input from the agency paying their salaries and employing them." He added that it was "inappropriate to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into a bill about protecting whistleblowers." Davis echoed Republican concerns that the amendment would turn science and public policy into a "personnel issue to be litigated in the courts." The House voted 252-173 to pass Stupak's amendment. All of the opposition came from within Republican ranks. Twenty-three Republicans joined all 229 Democrats present in passing the measure. Thus, a bill to expand federal whistleblower protections moved forward with a provision to include scientists conducting federally funded research. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
H.R. 985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/ This amendment to the Whistleblower Protection Act was proposed by Rep. William Sali (R-Idaho) and would remove language from the bill that gives whistleblower protections to government-funded scientists. Whistleblower protections aim to ensure that federal employees who report corruption or wrongdoing are not retaliated against or lose their own jobs. Sali said the motivation for his amendment was his belief that it's "inappropriate to attempt to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into this legislation, thus turning it into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts." The underlying bill makes disseminating "false or misleading technical information" an "abuse of authority," which triggers whistleblower protections for those who expose it. The problem, Sali said on the House floor, is that in science, "the question of what is false or misleading is often a difficult question on which reasonable people can disagree, and on which sometimes scientific authorities have a hard time making up their minds." Whistleblower protection, Sali said, means the threat of lawsuits for alleged abuses, and he asserted that turning science into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts "is not good public policy." During floor debate, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) responded that the Bush administration, by exerting unprecedented political interference on government-funded science, has put Congress in the position of having to legislate this issue. "We have seen scientific findings manipulated or outright rejected when they don't bolster favored policies. And we have seen government agencies put out information about health that is entirely false, but politically advantageous," Braley said, adding: "In one EPA report on the environment, the White House made so many edits to downplay the discussion of global warming that scientists at the agency said the draft no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change." Braley pointed out that 52 Nobel Laureates, 62 National Medal of Science winners, 194 members of the National Academies of Science and thousands of other American scientists have signed a statement speaking out against political interference in science, and in order to remedy the problems, "we have to know about them." This legislation does that, he asserted, without effecting legitimate political or policy decisions related to scientific issues. All it does is prevent retaliation against employees who report political interference with science, Braley said. By a vote of 159 in favor and 271 opposed, the House voted against Sali's amendment. All 232 Democrats present, as well as 39 Republicans, voted against it. Thus, provisions protecting government-funded scientists from retaliation for speaking out against undue political influence or other wrongdoing remained in the House's version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
H.R. 985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/Stupak of Michigan amendment to clarify that political interference with science is covered under the bill This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the Whistleblower Protection Act that specifically stated that instances of political interference in government-funded science are to be considered "abuses of authority," making their disclosure covered under the terms of the act. The amendment gives an example of political interference in the scientific process: preventing federally funded scientists or grantees from publishing or presenting their research. There have been numerous allegations of political appointees within the Bush administration doing that, including suppressing research on global climate change that didn't support the White House's stated position. The underlying bill aims to make it easier for federal employees and contractors to expose wrongdoing without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. A separate amendment by Stupak approved by the House (Roll Call 151) added scientists who engage in federally funded research to the list of those eligible to whistleblower protections. A majority of House Republicans opposed the measure, and Democrats unanimously supported it. In the end, the House voted 250-178 to approve Stupak's amendment, and thus the bill moved toward final passage with a provision specifying that political interference with government-funded science would be covered under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
Providing for the consideration of H.R. 985, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/On agreeing to the resolution This vote was on a measure establishing the rules for debate for a bill to grant whistleblower protections to federal employees and contractors who expose waste, fraud and corruption. The rules for consideration govern the floor management of the bill, including how much time will be granted to each side for debate and what amendments will be considered in order. It is commonly known as the "rules package." Prompted by the failure to expose faulty intelligence prior to the Iraq war, the underlying bill aims to make it easier for federal employees to expose wrongdoing without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. The measure's protections also cover employees of federal contractors, airport screeners and government scientists who claim retaliation for reporting undue political influences or other corruption. Republicans wanted to have amendments proposed by their side considered in order, which the Democratic-run Rules Committee that drafted the House's consideration of the bill did not allow. These sorts of procedural votes are almost always highly disciplined on each side, and little dissent is tolerated by each party's respective leadership. As such, Republicans unanimously voted against this rules package, even though 102 of them ended up voting for the final bill. All 223 Democrats presented voted for the resolution outlining the rules for debate, and all 193 Republicans voted against it. The measure thus passed on a party-line vote, and a bill to grant federal workers and contractors whistleblower protections for reporting corruption made its way towards final passage. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
Providing for the consideration of H.R. 985 (Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act)/On ordering the previous question and bring to a vote This vote was on a procedural motion on a resolution establishing the rules for debate for a bill to grant whistleblower protections to federal employees and contractors who expose waste, fraud and corruption. Prompted by the failure to expose faulty intelligence prior to the Iraq war, the bill aims to make it easier for federal employees to expose wrongdoing without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. The measure's protections also cover employees of federal contractors, airport screeners and government scientists who claim retaliation for reporting undue political influences or other corruption. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 224-197. Thus, a resolution outlining the terms for debate for a measure to grant whistleblower protections for federal workers and contractors moved one step closer towards a final vote on the measure itself. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
H.R. 1309 Legislation to amend the Freedom of Information Act/On the motion to suspend the rules and pass This bill represented the most comprehensive reform of the nation's freedom of information laws in more than a decade. The 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) originally gave citizens a right to view the operations of their government in the open by granting access to documents and information from federal agencies. That system has been widely acknowledged to be broken, however, although up until this year there has not been a majority consensus in Congress as to how to move forward. Many federal agencies are years and even decades behind in responding to FOIA requests, and the agencies' delays have left requestors with little other choice but costly litigation to get the information they seek. This bill -- sponsored by Reps. William Macy Clay (D-Mo.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.) -- aims to improve the efficiency of the FOIA system by streamlining the request and retrieval processes and implementing punitive measures as well as financial incentives for agency compliance. Reforms include expanding the range of individuals and organizations eligible to receive information; enforcing a 20-day deadline for agencies to respond to FOIA requests; instituting tracking numbers for requests and status information as well as a public hotline to track requests; requiring agencies to issue reports on the number of denied requests; establishing an ombudsman's office to settle disputes so as to avert litigation; and giving requestors the right to recover attorney fees after successful litigation. The bill also reverses a 2001 order by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that restricted public disclosure of information in cases with legal uncertainty, thus restoring FOIA's long-established "presumption of disclosure." The White House expressed opposition to the bill, saying that it was "premature and counterproductive" to put new requirements on federal agencies until they have a chance to implement changes the president made in an executive order a year an a half ago. Some Republicans also expressed concerns about the potential of disclosing information that related to national security. The bill was taken up by a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure is not amendable and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. (Although bills brought up under suspension are by definition not amendable, a motion to suspend the rules may propose passage of the measure in an amended form, as this motion did.) Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. The measure passed with the support of all 228 Democrats present as well as 80 Republicans; 117 Republicans voted against it. Thus, a measure to reform the Freedom of Information Act to expand the range of individuals and organizations eligible to receive information, improve the responsiveness of federal agencies, and institute measures to require executive branch compliance was sent to the Senate. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
H.R. 720 (Water Quality Financing Act of 2007)/On passage This was the final vote on legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution, and an additional $2 billion from fiscal 2008 through 2012 for three other existing clean-water Environmental Protection Agency programs. State and locals governments pressed Congress to reauthorize the revolving fund, which matches federal and state contributions to provide low-interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other projects designed to reduce pollution. The bill was opposed by the White House and many House Republicans because it included language expanding the scope of federal prevailing-wage requirements. Known as the Davis-Bacon Act, it mandates that workers on federally-funded construction projects receive locally prevailing wages and benefits, which is generally defined to mean wages received by unionized workers in the area. The legislation would expand the reach of that law to include wastewater construction projects paid for with non-federal funds. The White House threatened to veto the bill. Republicans maintained that local governments could not afford the construction projects if the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements were included. Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) and other Republican lawmakers claimed that the inclusion of the language was a giveaway to labor interests at the expense of the American people. Democrats said the language was pro-family and pro-worker, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the provision was "fair and appropriate." Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said the Davis-Bacon provisions prevent lower-cost out-of-state contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, and thereby "protects local interests and construction workers." By a vote of 303-108, a measure to authorize money for a federal- and state-backed revolving fund to provide low-interest loans to municipalities to finance local infrastructure projects aimed at reducing water pollution easily passed the House. The measure included a provision expanding the scope of federal prevailing-wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act that mandate that workers on federally funded projects receive comparable wages to unionized workers in the area. The bill had yet to be taken up in the Senate. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
H.R. 720 (Water Quality Financing Act)/On motion to recommit with instructions to include an amendment barring certain felons from boarding ships with a transportation-worker identification card This vote was on a procedural motion on legislation authorizing $16 billion for a federal and state revolving fund to help local governments fight water pollution. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sought to attach an amendment to bar individuals with a transportation worker identification card from boarding a maritime vessel if they have been convicted of felonies including espionage, treason, sedition, murder, racketeering and crimes dealing with explosives or incendiary devices. The overall legislation would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution, and an additional $2 billion from fiscal 2008 through 2012 for three other existing clean-water Environmental Protection Agency programs. Cantor's motion sought to send the bill back to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with instructions to include his amendment. Cantor said his amendment was "intended to protect our maritime workforce, our national security, and ultimately the ports that serve and provide commerce to our great nation." Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) responded during floor debate that the minority did not make the language of the amendment available for the majority's review until just before submitting it, and thus he could not make comments, adding that the House should not amend port security policy "on 30 seconds notice." "There may be very good and valid provisions of this motion to recommit that we might very well be in support of, but only in due course, only in a proper forum," Oberstar said, adding that Cantor couldn't even answer his questions about the precise nature of the amendment. "I object to the procedure that has been followed, not perhaps to the substance of it." Despite Oberstar's objections, Republicans scored a rare parliamentary victory and successfully sent the measure back to the Transportation panel with instructions to add Cantor's amendment. The House then adopted Cantor's amendment by voice vote. By a vote of 359-56, the motion to recommit with instructions was agreed to and thus the bill to provide federal- and state-backed loans to municipalities to prevent water pollution was amended to bar certain felons from boarding ships with a transportation-worker identification card. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
H.R. 720 (Water Quality Financing Act), Baker of Louisiana amendment to strike the provision in the bill applying Davis-Bacon local wage parity requirements to wastewater construction projects financed with non-federal funds/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing $16 billion for a federal and state revolving fund to help local governments fight water pollution. The amendment, offered by Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.), sought to remove the portion of the bill that would require the wastewater construction projects funded through the bill to abide by the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that workers on federally-funded construction projects receive locally prevailing wages and benefits which is generally defined to mean the wages received by unionized workers in the area. Unamended, the legislation would expand the reach of that law to include wastewater construction projects paid for with non-federal funds. The White House threatened to veto the bill over the Davis-Bacon language. State and locals governments pressed Congress to reauthorize the revolving fund, which matches federal and state contributions to provide low-interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other projects designed to reduce pollution, but Baker and other Republicans maintained that the local governments could not afford the construction projects if the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements were included. Republicans such as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) claimed that the inclusion of the language was a giveaway to labor interests at the expense of the American people. Democrats said the language was pro-family and pro-worker, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the provision was "fair and appropriate." Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said the Davis-Bacon provisions prevent lower-cost out-of-state contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, and thereby "protects local interests and construction workers." Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the amendment, and 50 Republicans joined all 230 Democrats present in voting against it. Thus, by a vote of 140-280, a bill authorizing funding for a revolving fund to help finance local wastewater projects went forward without an amendment that would strike a provision in the bill requiring that the workers on such projects receive locally prevailing wages. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
H. Res. 229, providing for consideration of a bill (H.R. 720) to authorize funds for state water pollution control/On agreeing to the resolution The resolution outlined the rules for debate for legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution, and an additional $2 billion from fiscal 2008 through 2012 for three other existing clean-water Environmental Protection Agency programs. State and locals governments pressed Congress to reauthorize the revolving fund, which matches federal and state contributions to provide low-interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other projects designed to reduce pollution. The rules for debate include how much floor time is granted to each side and which amendments are considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. The six amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee included three each to be offered by Republicans and Democrats. The bill was opposed by the White House and many House Republicans because it included language expanding the scope of federal prevailing-wage requirements. Republicans wanted to offer more amendments than were allowed to strip or alter this provision. Republicans opposed Democratic attempts to expand the scope of the Davis-Bacon wage law, which mandates that workers on federally-funded construction projects receive locally prevailing wages and benefits. The legislation would expand the reach of that law to include wastewater construction projects paid for with non-federal funds. The White House threatened to veto the bill because of the wage provision. Democrats said the language was pro-family and pro-worker, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the provision was "fair and appropriate." Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said the provision would actually hurt the very people Democrats said they were trying to protect - the least advantaged - because their communities would not be able to afford the projects with the Davis-Bacon wage requirements. "If you support fiscal responsibility, small business, States' rights, rural communities, women- and minority-owned businesses, and the environment, you will join with me in opposing this rule," Sessions said. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) complained that the Rules Committee did not allow his amendments to exempt certain rural and disadvantaged communities from the Davis-Bacon requirements and to give "our small communities a chance to access these funds." "Sure, we don't agree on Davis-Bacon, and having an up-and-down vote is fine, but that is a political vote. We are all frozen in our positions," Boustany said. "But we could have taken a chance to protect our small and disadvantaged communities by creating some exemptions. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said that just the opposite is true. "The Davis-Bacon Act prevents lower-cost out-of-state contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, which protects local interests and construction workers." The rules for debate passed on a party-line vote, 229-179, with nine Republicans joining all but two Democrats present in voting for the resolution. Thus, a measure outlining the rules for debate for a bill to authorize funds for state water pollution control passed the House, making way for the legislation to move to the floor. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
H. Res. 202, providing for House committee expenses in the 110th Congress/On agreeing to the resolution This vote was on passage of a $280 million resolution to fund the operations of 20 committees during the 110th Congress, a 7.4 percent overall increase over committee spending over the most recent two-year Congress. The most controversial elements of the measure were funding for a new select committee to investigate the threats of global warming and the level of funding for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the ethics committee. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was a priority of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.). Even though the panel does not have legislative authority and instead is designed simply to make recommendations, it faced some opposition in both parties. Republican opposition was centered both on the party's skepticism of policies to reduce greenhouse gases generally and objections as to how the panel was created (through a parliamentary maneuver embedded in the rules for debate of the committee funding resolution, see Roll Call 127). Some Democratic chairman of existing committees with jurisdiction over the issue of climate change were worried that the new panel would trample on their turf, although Pelosi was able to earn their support before the vote on the resolution. The ranking Republican member on Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), said the process was "outrageous," as he said Republicans had been shut out of the discussions. Republicans also indicated that the money for the panel ($3.7 million over the next two years) would be better spent on the ethics committee. Dreier said during floor debate that while most committees can get by with a "very modest increase" of 2.6 percent over their funding levels during the 109th Congress (the amount of increase when the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee's funding is not included in that percentage), the ethics committee "absolutely cannot." The House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct was slated to receive $5 million under the resolution, a small increase over the previous Congress but $1 million less than the committee requested. Democrats defended the funding levels as adequate and reflective of the difficult choices foisted upon them by the ever-growing federal deficit. In the rules package for the 110th Congress, the House imposed on the ethics committee "substantial new responsibilities," Dreier said. "And they are still in a position where they have to now provide timely advice to every single Member who makes a request for the application of this rule," in addition to the committee's obligation to investigate "allegations of wrongdoing whenever they do occur," Dreier added. The panel, he said, has already fallen behind. "Appropriation season is well under way, and we have absolutely no guidance whatsoever about the new ethics standards for earmarks. We have new travel and gift rules, but those regulations created as many questions as they answered," Dreier continued. "Today we'll see where Democrats' true priorities lie," added Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). An angry Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), who chairs the ethics committee, responded: "You're not going to use my committee on the floor," said, accusing Sessions of political gamesmanship and leaving the House floor in haste. The resolution funding House committees, including funding for a new committee on climate change, passed the House by 269-150. All but one Democrat voted for the funding measure, and 44 Republicans broke ranks to support the resolution. Thus, House committees were granted $280 million for operating costs for the next two years. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
H.R. 700 (Healthy Communities Water Supply Act), Price of Georgia amendment to require offsets to the bill's cost in other parts of the federal budget/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a clean-water bill that would revive a $125 million pilot program aimed at developing alternative water sources. The legislation would provide grants to local governments, water agencies and non-governmental organizations. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) proposed an amendment that would have required the bill to include fiscal offsets in other parts of the federal budget so that there would be no net increase in the federal budget. Price said his amendment was a matter of "responsibility." Price also proposed a similar amendment to another piece of water-quality legislation that would have required that cost of that bill to be offset, as well. (See Roll Call 123.) "For some in this Chamber, $125 million may not be very much money," Price said in a floor speech, "but for folks in my district, and I suspect for folks around this Nation, $125 million is a lot of money." Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) responded that Price's amendment mixes up the issue of authorization of appropriations. All federal programs must be authorized before money is appropriated for them. This bill was such an authorization, and thus no money was to be appropriated at this time. The amendment, however, would require that any authorization find a corresponding offset in the federal budget, regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. Democrats maintained that any provision to require offsets (also known as pay-as-you-go rules) should be debated as part of the funding bill itself, not in the legislation to authorize it. "This is an authorization committee, and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations process, which is where this will be more appropriate," Johnson said. "This amendment would require that any authorization of appropriations be considered with corresponding offsets regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. It is possible that it won't. "This is an inappropriate limitation on the ability of Congress to address the needs of the Nation," she added. Price responded that his amendment would require Congress to find offsets only if "there should be money spent for these grant projects." Regardless, he said, adopting his amendment would put the House on record that any appropriations that would result from the bill should be offset. A majority of the House did not agree. By a vote of 176-256, lawmakers defeated his amendment. Only one Democrat joined with 175 Republicans in voting for it, and 22 Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it. Thus, a clean-water bill that would revive a $125 million pilot program aimed at developing alternative water sources went forward without a provision to require future appropriations to be offset by cutting other programs. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
H. Res. 219, providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 202) providing for House committee expenses in the 110th Congress/On ordering the previous question This resolution outlined the rules for debate for a measure to provide $276.4 million to fund the operations of 20 committees during the 110th Congress, a 7.4 percent overall increase over committee spending over the most recent two-year Congress. More controversially, the measure also would create a new select committee to investigate the threats of global warming. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was a priority of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.). In order not to threaten the turfs of existing House chairman, Pelosi set up the committee as an advisory panel that lacks legislative authority. Many Republicans opposed it on general grounds of the party's skepticism of legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. Additionally, some Democratic chairman of existing committees with jurisdiction over the issue of climate change were worried that the new panel would trample on their authority. Due to this opposition from both Republicans and within her own party, Pelosi chose to create the panel through a parliamentary maneuver: putting the provision in a rule governing debate of a measure funding House committees (including staff pay and office expenses). "Simply put, people the world over can breathe easier, because this resolution will institutionalize the commitment of the House of Representatives to confronting global warming," said Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.). The ranking Republican member on the panel, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), said the process was "outrageous," as he said Republicans had been shut out of the discussions. Republicans also indicated that the money for the panel ($3.7 million over the next two years) would be better spent on the ethics committee. "Today we'll see where Democrats' true priorities lie," said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). An angry Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), who chairs the ethics committee, responded: "You're not going to use my committee on the floor," said, accusing Sessions of political gamesmanship and leaving the House floor in haste. The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is slated to receive $5 million under the resolution, a small increase over the previous Congress but $1 million less than the committee requested. Democrats defended the funding levels as adequate and reflective of the difficult choices foisted upon them by the ever-growing federal deficit. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and only one lawmaker from each party broke ranks, and the motion passed 228-195. Thus, a measure outlining rules for debate on a resolution providing for committee expenses for the 110th Congress was passed with a provision creating a new select committee on climate change. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
H.R. 569 (Water Quality Investment Act), Price of Georgia amendment that would prohibit the bill's authorization levels from taking effect unless the cost of those provisions would be offset /On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a $1.7 billion to replace aging sewer systems over five years. The legislation would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize grants to help local governments increase municipal sewer overflow controls and prevent untreated sewage from being dumped into rivers and other public areas. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) proposed an amendment that would have required the bill to include fiscal offsets by spending reductions or revenue-increasing measures in other parts of the federal budget. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said during a floor speech supporting the bill that over 700 cities around the country have what are known as combined sewer overflow systems, which means they collect wastewater and storm runoff in the same pipes and do not have the capacity of more modern infrastructure. During heavy storms, they often back up and overflow, sending untreated wastewater into the streets and rivers. "Raw sewage seeps into basements, public parks and other areas where young children play. Public health is severely impacted," Matsui said, and not investing in these upgrades could create a public health problem far more expensive. Price didn't disagree with the need for the bill in a speech on the House floor, just how Congress was going to fund it. His amendment would have required that any new spending authorized in this bill would be required to be offset to make it so that there would be no net increase in federal spending. "It is a matter of accountability," Price said. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) responded that Price's amendment "confuses the issue of authorization of appropriations and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations process." All federal programs must be authorized before money is appropriated for them. This bill is such an authorization, and thus no money was to be appropriated at this time. According to Johnson, Price's amendment would require that any authorization find a corresponding offset in the federal budget, regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. Democrats maintained that any provision to require offsets (also known as pay-as-you-go rules) should be debated as part of the funding bill itself, not in the program to authorize it. Price responded that adopting his amendment would put the House on record that any money that would result from the bill should be offset. A majority of the House did not agree. By a vote of 166-260, lawmakers defeated his amendment. Only one Democrat joined with 165 Republicans in voting for it, and 32 Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it. Thus, the $1.7 billion legislation to replace aging sewer systems went forward without a provision to require future appropriations to be offset by cutting other programs or raising taxes. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
H.R. 800 The Employee Free Choice Act/On passage Perhaps the most dramatic indication yet of how the new Democratic Congress intends to distinguish itself from more than a decade of Republican control, the House passed a sweeping labor reform bill that would make it easier for unions to organize. The bill passed with almost unanimous support from Democrats, with additional votes from moderate Republicans. Democrats successfully beat back a handful of amendments authored by Republicans that Democratic leaders said would essentially have gutted the bill. Republicans failed in their strategy to peel off enough moderate Democrats to weaken portions of the bill most anathema to business interests. Overall, the legislation would make it easier for workers to join unions by requiring employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed after employer consent. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation mandates that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement effectively ends secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and opens up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. Several moderate Republicans, under heavy pressure from their leadership to vote against the bill, said that the bill's compromise of the secret ballot is what ultimately determined their "no" votes. "There are parts that I would like to see move forward and I very much support," including tougher penalties for companies that violate the law, said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). But for Diaz-Balart, as for Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) , the secret ballot was tantamount. "I believe strongly in that fundamental right" to join a union, Capito said, "but I also believe that the right to a secret ballot is just as important." Ultimately, 13 Republicans joined 228 Democrats in voting to make it easier for workers to join a union. Two Democrats joined ranks with 183 Republicans in voting against the measure. The bill thus passed by a vote of 241-185, and moved to the Senate. The president also threatened to veto the measure. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
H R 800 The Employee Free Choice Act/On motion to recommit with instructions This vote represented a last-ditch effort by Republicans to alter a bill to make it easier for workers to join unions before the legislation headed to a final vote. The overall bill would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In the majority-drafted rules of debate, which passed by a separate vote, Democrats permitted Republicans to offer three amendments, all three of which failed. One of those amendments, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would have required the NLRB to allow employees to put their names on a "do not call" list if they didn't want to be contacted by union organizers. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. All but eight Republicans voted to send the bill back to committee with specific directions to include the minority's amendments. And although Republicans picked up 13 Democratic "ayes," it was insufficient to pass the motion to recommit, and the effort thus failed by a vote of 202-225. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans were shut out of their attempts to amend the measure in the House, and legislation making it easier for unions to organize headed for final passage without House Republicans' desired changes. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
H.R. 800 (Employee Union Card Check), Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute that would prohibit the recognition of a union by the card check method and require that unions be recognized only after secret ballot elections/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on a substitute amendment to a bill aiming to make it easier for workers to join unions. Substitute amendments attempt to replace the text of a bill in its entirely with different language. It is a procedural tactic often used by the minority to put forth its own version of legislation. The bill Republicans were seeking to change would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized because the union has to win an election in which it is opposed by the employers,, which hire skilled consultants to wage antiunion campaigns. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In this vote, Republicans were seeking to change the bill to prohibit the recognition of a union by the card check method and require that a union be recognized and certified only after a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). The amendment in the nature of a substitute failed on a vote of 173-256. All but one Democrat present voted against it, and 26 Republicans joined 230 Democrats in defeating the amendment. Thus, a bill to make it easier for employees to organize themselves in unions proceeded without provisions making that effort more difficult for employees. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
H.R. 800 (Employee Union Card Check), Foxx of North Carolina amendment that would allow employees to be put on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by a union/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a bill aiming to make it easier for workers to join unions. Offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the language would require the National Labor Relations Board to promulgate standards so that an employee could request to be on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by a union. The bill Foxx was seeking to change would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized because the union has to win an election in which it is opposed by the employers, which hire skilled consultants to wage antiunion campaigns. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. Foxx's amendment failed on a vote of 173-256. All but two Democrats present voted against it, and 26 Republicans joined 230 Democrats in defeating the amendment. Thus, a bill to make it easier for employees to organize themselves in unions proceeded without provisions allowing employees to be put on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by a union. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
H.R. 800 (Employee Union Card Check), King of Iowa amendment that would provide that employers are not required to hire individuals seeking employment for the sole purpose of organizing other employees into a union/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a bill aiming to make it easier for workers to join unions. Offered by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the language would provide that employers are not required to hire individuals seeking employment for the sole purpose of organizing other employees into a union, a practice known as "salting." The bill King was seeking to change would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized because the union has to win an election in which it is opposed by the employers, which hire skilled consultants to wage antiunion campaigns. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. Generally, Republicans oppose more expansive collective bargaining rights and many within the party support a rollback of laws guaranteeing workers have the right to join unions. Democrats are generally supportive of such rights and support their expansion. King's amendment failed on a vote of 164-264. All but two Democrats present voted against it, and 34 Republicans joined 230 Democrats in defeating the amendment. Thus, a bill to make it easier for employees to organize themselves in unions proceeded without language allowing employers to refuse to hire individuals seeking employment for the sole purpose of organizing other employees into a union. LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
H. Res. 203 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act/On agreeing to the resolution This vote determined the rules for debate on a bill to make it easier for workers to join unions. In order for legislation to be taken up in the House, the chamber decides on ground rules for which amendments will be considered in order and how much time will be allotted each side for debate. The rules package, as it is known, is drafted by the majority-dominated Rules Committee. The bill in question makes significant changes to existing labor law and would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In the majority-drafted rules package, Democrats permitted Republicans to offer three amendments. One of those amendments, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) would have required the NLRB to allow employees to put their names on a "do not call" list if they didn't want to be contacted by union organizers. Votes on rules packages are usually party-line affairs, with the majority party voting in favor of the rules it drafted, and the minority party voting against it. Such was the case in this vote, with every Democrat present voting for the resolution and all Republicans present but one voting against it. (Rep. John McHugh was the lone dissenter among Republicans; his New York district has a heavy labor presence.) The rules package thus passed by a vote of 230-195, and the bill to make it easier for unions to organize was subsequently brought to the floor. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
H. Res. 203 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act/On ordering the previous question This vote was a procedural precursor to a vote that would determine the rules for debate on a bill to make it easier for workers to join unions. In order for legislation to be taken up in the house, the chamber decides on ground rules for which amendments will be considered in order and how much time will be allotted to each side for debate. The rules package, as it is known, is drafted by the majority-dominated Rules Committee. The bill in question would make significant changes to existing labor law and would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In the majority-drafted rules package, Democrats permitted Republicans to offer three amendments. One of those amendments, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would have required the NLRB to allow employees to put their names on a "do not call" list if they didn't want to be contacted by union organizers. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 228-197. Thus, Democrats effectively shut down Republican objections to the rules package, and a bill making it easier for unions to organize came one step closer to floor consideration. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
H.R. 556 The National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act/On motion to recommit with instructions This vote dealt with a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. A similar measure was first introduced last year after it was reported that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). It went forward despite security concerns raised by the Homeland Security Department and without the input of key cabinet officials. (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.) This bill attempted to rectify those perceived security gaps by formalizing the role of the director of national intelligence in the CFIUS process, ensuring senior officials are involved in approving transactions and establishing more formal communications between the executive branch and Congress in order for the latter to provide adequate oversight. Although there was virtually no opposition to the general framework of the legislation, many Republicans protested the fact that they were prevented from offering their own amendments. Some Republican proposals dealt with the main thrust of the bill, such as three offered by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) that incorporated suggestions by the White House to eliminate a requirement that CFIUS members approve deals by roll call vote. "Currently, the different agencies that make up the CFIUS committee work as a team until they arrive at a consensus view," Davis said during floor debate. "It is my understanding that the committee does not take roll call votes agency-by-agency on each transaction deal that is examined. The current CFIUS approach is much more holistic and fosters a team effort." This vote was on a Republican motion to recommit, which would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to add the Republican-backed provisions. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. All 226 Democrats presented voted against the motion to recommit, and all but three Republicans present voted for it. Thus, with a vote of 193-229, the measure failed. The bill then moved to a final vote, and it passed unanimously, demonstrating that Republican's objections to the details of the bill were not enough to prevent them from voting for a politically popular measure. Other Republican amendments highlighted issues, not related to national security, that Republicans believe serve to discourage foreign investment, such as tax, legal and regulatory burdens. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans in the House were shut out of their attempts to amend legislation to strengthen the process for national security reviews of foreign investments in the United States. The bill headed to the Senate. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
H.R. 556 (National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act), McCaul of Texas amendment to require annual reporting on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. The amendment, offered by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the annual report to Congress by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include a detailed annual reporting on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment. The bill to which McCaul was seeking to amend was prompted by reports in 2006 that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.) McCaul said his amendment would improve the oversight requirements included in the underlying bill and would allow Congress to be better informed on how future legislation would affect foreign investment. "It is hard for me to conceive why the Congress wouldn't want this kind of information in evaluating our national security policies as they relate to economics," McCaul continued, adding that it was difficult for him "to differentiate and dissect how national security is not impacted by our economic security and economic viability." Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) replied, "The gentleman said he is unable to differentiate. I agree. He asked why don't I want this information. Mr. Chairman, I want lunch too, but I am not asking CFIUS to bring it to me. "We want these people to thoroughly vet whether or not there is a purchase by foreign investors in America that could lead to national security issues in the narrow definition," Frank said, adding that lots of things were important to national security, but this bill was not the venue to debate them. He called the series of amendments McCaul offered to the bill a "diversion." By a vote of 197-231, the amendment failed on a party-line vote. Two Democrats and two Republicans didn't vote with their respective parties, but otherwise Republicans supported McCaul's effort, and Democrats near unanimously opposed it. Thus, the House defeated an amendment to require annual reporting on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment, and a bill to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States proceeded without the provision. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
H.R. 556 (National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act), McCaul of Texas amendment to require annual reporting on the amount of regulation in the United States compared to other countries/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. The amendment, offered by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the annual report to Congress by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include a detailed discussion of the amount of regulation in the United States as compared to other countries. The bill to which McCaul was seeking to amend was prompted by reports in 2006 that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.) McCaul said his amendment would improve the oversight requirements included in the underlying bill and would allow Congress to be better informed on how future legislation would affect foreign investment. "The underlying bill again is about foreign investment," McCaul said on the House floor. "I believe foreign investment affects national security. Issues relating to taxation and regulation certainly impact the foreign investments that are made both in this country and outside." Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the amendment was not relevant to the bill. He called the series of amendments McCaul offered to the bill a "diversion." "The fact is that if you define everything as national security, you really can't do the piece by piece that you want to," Frank said. The amendment, Frank said, was basically a requirement that the administration undertake an annual study on the effect of regulation on business. That discussion had no place in this debate, which is why the White House opposed it, Frank added. By a vote of 197-231, the amendment failed on a party-line vote. Three Democrats and three Republicans didn't vote with their respective parties, but otherwise Republicans supported McCaul's effort, and Democrats near unanimously opposed it. Thus, the House defeated an amendment to require annual reporting on the amount of regulation in the United States, and a bill to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States proceeded without the provision. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
H.R. 556 (National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act), McCaul of Texas amendment to require annual reporting on the effective rate of taxation on entrepreneurs and businesses compared to other countries/On agreeing to the amendment This vote was on an amendment to a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. The amendment, offered by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the annual report to Congress by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include a detailed discussion of the effective rate of taxation on entrepreneurs and businesses in the United States compared to other countries. The bill to which McCaul was seeking to amend was prompted by reports in 2006 that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World -- a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates -- to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.) McCaul said his amendment would improve the oversight requirements included in the underlying bill and would allow Congress to be better informed on how future legislation would affect foreign investment. "The underlying bill is about how foreign investment affects national security, and there is no way to understand why foreign investments would be made here, or what it would do to our economy, without understanding the economic factors such as taxes," McCaul said during floor debate. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said aligning the amendment to the overall intent of the legislation took "ingenuity." "This is a requirement that the administration do a report about taxation as it affects business," Frank said, adding that McCaul only tied it to foreign investment in order to meet restrictions that any amendments be germane (relevant) to the bill. "This is a call for an annual report on the effective taxation on business," Frank continued, calling the amendment a "diversion." Frank further pointed out that the White House did not support the amendment, as all parties concerned wanted to keep the bill narrowly targeted to deal with the national security implications of foreign investment. Generally, however, Republicans are opposed to what they believe are excessive taxation on businesses, and so this amendment allowed them a venue to express displeasure at the current tax structure in the United States. On a party-line vote, the House voted down the amendment. All but one Republican voted for it, and all but two Democrats voted against it, with a final tally of 198-228. Thus, the House defeated an amendment to require annual reporting on the effective rate of taxation on entrepreneurs and businesses, and a bill to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States proceeded without the provision. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
H. Res. 161, providing for consideration of small-business tax bill under suspension of the rules/On agreeing to the resolution This vote determined whether a small-business tax relief bill would be taken up under suspension of the normal rules in the House. Suspension of the rules is saved for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure can't be amended and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. Republicans criticized Democrats for using the expedited procedure to move the bill quickly through the House, as doing so prevented Republicans from being able to offer so much as a procedural motion. Republicans were upset at the limited scope of the tax breaks and wanted a change to offer more expansive tax relief for small businesses. Republicans were opposed to bringing up the measure under suspension of the rules, which permits expeditious passage, because of their underlying opposition to the minimum wage hike, which they said would hurt small businesses. The small-business tax break package was actually part of an elaborate dance between the House, the Senate and the White House over a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. The House passed a minimum wage bill in January that fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate and pass Senate. Republicans in the Senate wanted to include amendments giving tax breaks to small businesses, which Republicans insist will be hard-hit by an increase in the minimum wage. Since all bills dealing with revenue (which includes tax measures) are constitutionally required to originate in the House, the legislative process had to begin anew in that chamber. This small-business tax relief bill was understood in both chambers as the likely vehicle for a Senate-passed version of the legislation that would eventually include both a minimum wage hike and tax breaks for small businesses. Differences in the House and Senate's respective versions then would be worked out in conference committee. By a strict party-line vote of 220-184 the House passed the rules package for the small business tax relief bill and thus made way for the legislation to be taken up expeditiously under suspension of the rules. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
H. Res. 161, providing for floor consideration of a small-business tax bill (H.R. 976) under suspension of the rules/On ordering the previous question This vote dealt with the rules for debate for a $1.3 billion package of small-business tax breaks. More specifically, the vote was on a parliamentary procedure to end debate as to whether the House would take up the legislation under suspension of normal rules. The small-business tax break package was actually part of an elaborate dance between the House, the Senate and the White House over a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. The House passed a minimum wage bill in January that fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate and pass Senate. Republicans in the Senate wanted to include amendments giving tax breaks to small businesses, which Republicans insist will be hard-hit by an increase in the minimum wage. Since all bills dealing with revenue (which includes tax measures) are constitutionally required to originate in the House, the legislative process had to begin anew in that chamber. This small-business tax relief bill was understood in both chambers as the likely vehicle for a Senate-passed version of the legislation that would eventually include both a minimum wage hike and tax breaks for small businesses. Differences in the House and Senate's respective versions then were expected to be worked out in conference committee. The question at hand was whether the House would take the bill up under what's known as suspension of the rules, basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure can't be amended and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. Republicans were opposed to bringing up the measure under suspension of the rules, which permits expeditious passage, because of their underlying opposition to the minimum wage hike, which they said would hurt small businesses. This vote - which needed a simple majority to pass -- was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration, in this case the "rules package" for the small-business tax bill. If the motion had been defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but five voted for it, and the motion passed 218-188. Thus, a measure outlining the rules of consideration for taking up a small-business tax relief bill under suspension of the rules passed the House on a party-line vote, brining the legislation one step closer to consideration in the House. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
H Con. Res. 63. Disapproving of President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq/On agreeing to the resolution This was the final vote on a nonbinding measure criticizing President Bush's stated intention to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by more than 20,000. The resolution, put forth by the Democrats, expressed support for the troops currently serving in Iraq as well as those who have previously served there while also disapproving of Bush's plan to increase troop levels. House Republicans wanted to offer an alternative to the Democrats' resolution in the form of a binding measure that would have established benchmarks for improving the security situation in Iraq to be overseen by a bipartisan panel. The Democratic leadership said that since the majority of Americans oppose the troop surge, the House should reflect that clarity by simply offering one resolution opposing it. The question, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, is a simple one: "Do you support the escalation of troops in Iraq?" The House Republican leadership argued that the language would have a demoralizing effect on the troops in combat while also emboldening enemies of the United States. Republicans also criticized the resolution as a likely first attempt to cut off funding for military personnel in the field, an accusation that Hoyer said was flatly untrue. In the end, 17 Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting for the resolution, and the measure passed 246-182. Thus a resolution criticizing Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq by more than 20,000 passed the House with a clear majority, making clear that the House does not support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. The Senate had plans to take up a similar measure the following day. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
H. Res. 157 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 63) disapproving President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq/On agreeing to the resolution This vote laid out the rules for debate for a nonbinding measure criticizing President Bush's intention to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by more than 20,000. This resolution, often referred to as a "rules package," outlined the rules for consideration for how the resolution to send more troops to Iraq would be taken up on the House floor. It dictated how much time each side will be given for debate, and more importantly, what amendments or alternatives would be considered in order. House Republicans wanted to offer an alternative to the Democrats' resolution in the form of a binding measure that would have established benchmarks for progess in improving the security situation in Iraq to be overseen by a bipartisan panel. The Democratic leadership said that since the majority of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq, the House should reflect that clarity by simply offering one resolution opposing it. The question, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, is a simple one: "Do you support the escalation of troops in Iraq?" The resolution put forth by the Democrats expresses support for the troops currently serving in Iraq as well as those who have previously served there while also disapproving of Bush's plan to increase troop levels. The House Republican leadership argued that the language would have a demoralizing effect on the troops in combat while also emboldening the country's enemies. Republicans also criticized the resolution as a likely first attempt to cut off funding for military personnel in the field, an accusation that Hoyer said was flatly untrue. In the end, four Republicans joined all but one Democrat in voting for the rules package, and the measure passed 232-192. Thus a resolution criticizing Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq by more than 20,000 moved forward towards a final up-or-down vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
H. Res. 157 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of President Bush's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq/Ordering the previous question This vote was a procedural attempt by Republicans to bring up alternative language to a Democratic resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush's plan to send more than 20,00 more troops to Iraq. The alternative proposal, drafted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), was a nonbinding resolution stating that Congress would not vote to restrict or cut off funding for troops already deployed in Iraq. A motion ordering the previous question is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, in this case Johnson. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 227-197. Thus, a Republican procedural maneuver attempting to force consideration of a resolution stating that Congress wouldn't vote to cut off funding for troops in Iraq failed. The House then proceeded with a Democratic proposal to express disapproval of Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
Advanced Fuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)/Motion to recommit to the Science and Technology Committee with instructions to add coal-based liquids to a list of "alternative fuels" promoted in the underlying legislation This vote represented a Republican attempt to modify legislation to authorize $10 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to research how to make alternative fuels more compatible with the nations existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. Offered using a parliamentary maneuver called a motion to recommit, the move would have sent the bill back to the Science and Technology Committee with instructions to include coal-based liquids in a bill promoting "biofuels" and change the measure's terminology instead to "alternative fuels." The underlying legislation directs the federal government to help retailers make the infrastructure changes necessary to transition to biofuels. The bill would instruct the EPA to investigate additives and other technologies to ease such issues. The legislation would also direct the agency to develop a way to test the sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel fuel at fuel stations to make sure it complies with the needs of new low-sulfur diesel engines. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) offered the motion to recommit. "By leaving this out, this bill discriminates not only on coal-to-liquid technologies ... but also natural gas and hydrogen," Shimkus said of the bill. Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the bill's sponsor, said the motion was "another effort to try to undermine this good bill today." He said that while "clean" coal may be part of future energy supplies, it "is not available now." Adding it to this bill would only undermine the legislation, he said, as the bill was intended to be a "very narrow" fix to redesign existing infrastructure. Shimkus' amendment was likely a political maneuver designed to put coal-state Democrats on the defensive, requiring them to buck their party's leadership or seemingly vote against the interests of their own states' economies. In the end, nine Democrats -- including West Virginia Reps. Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, who represent a coal-producing state -- voted for Shimkus' motion. Only one Republican, Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) opposed it. Some coal-state Democrats did not take the bait, however. "I'm not taking anything serious that Republicans are doing today," said Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). Doyle represents a coal-producing state and supports expanding coal-to-liquids technology. The final vote was 200 to 207, and the motion to recommit failed. Thus, Republicans were unsuccessful in their effort to send biofuel-infrastructure legislation back to committee with instructions to include liquid-coal among the "alternative fuels" promoted in the measure. The bill to direct the EPA to develop technology to facilitate the implementation of biofuels and low-sulfur diesel went forward without an amendment promoting coal. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
Advanced Fuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)/Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.) amendment that would direct the Energy Department to consider the infrastructure challenges to arise from the advancement of hydrogen fuel This vote was on an amendment to legislation that would authorize $10 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to research how to make alternative fuels more compatible with the nations existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. The amendment would direct the Energy Department to consider the infrastructure challenges to arise from the advancement of hydrogen fuel. The underlying legislation that this amendment tried to modify directs the federal government to help retailers make the infrastructure changes necessary to transition to biofuels. The bill would instruct the EPA to investigate additives and other technologies to ease such issues. The legislation would also direct the agency to develop a way to test the sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel fuel at fuel stations to make sure it complies with the needs of new low-sulfur diesel engines. Dent's amendment sought, in his words, "to acknowledge and address the infrastructure challenges that will be presented by the advancement of hydrogen fuel, which can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including biomass." It would direct the Energy secretary, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to consider the challenges for design, reforming storage, handling and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks. "As we address the important infrastructure challenges raised by the promotion of biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel, I also believe it is incumbent upon us to start paving the way for the hydrogen economy," Dent said. "These are consistent technologies that are complementary and that promote alternative development." Opponents of the amendment, most of whom were Democrats, maintained that it was outside the scope of legislation dealing with the infrastructure implications of biofuels and low-sulfur diesel. "The gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, in contrast, deals with problems of containing hydrogen, a fuel now derived from natural gas rather than biomass, and distributing it if and when hydrogen vehicles become available," said Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas). "Hydrogen would require a new distribution infrastructure. So while the amendment uses similar words related to distribution, it is talking about an entirely new generation of distribution technology." Lampson added that while it is possible that hydrogen could eventually be developed from biomass, "it is not today." Dent replied that biomass can be used in the production of hydrogen. "Again, as you develop an infrastructure for biomass and biodiesel, developing one for hydrogen is just as essential," he continued. Despite the opposition from the much of the Democratic majority, Dent's amendment was passed with 38 Democratic supporters. Eight Republicans voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 226 to 201, legislation to direct the EPA to help develop the technology to facilitate the implementation of biofuels and low-sulfur diesel was amended to include a provision directing research into the infrastructure needs of hydrogen fuel. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
Advanced Fuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)/Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) amendment to require the EPA to consider strategies to minimize emissions that may be released when biofuels are blended, stored and transported This vote was on an amendment to legislation that would authorize $10 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to research how to make alternative fuels more compatible with the nations existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. The amendment would require the EPA to consider the effect on emissions for any new technology to facilitate the implementation of biofuels. Biofuels such as ethanol (usually made of corn) are regarded by many in Congress as a cleaner-burning alternative to fossil fuels. This is not a universally accepted notion, however, as it takes as many as seven barrels of petroleum in the form of fertilizer and other inputs to create eight barrels of ethanol, according to the Cato Institute. And the Sierra Club maintains that ethanol is actually worse than gasoline in producing smog. The premise of this legislation was that biofuels such as ethanol are desirable alternatives to fossil fuels, but because they can corrode, contaminate or clog the infrastructure designed for petroleum products, the federal government should help retailers make the transition. The bill would instruct the EPA to investigate additives and other technologies to ease such issues. The legislation would also direct the agency to develop a way to test the sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel fuel at fuel stations to make sure it complies with the needs of new low-sulfur diesel engines. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) sought to amend the bill to ensure that the EPA considers the impact on emissions when developing additives and technologies to ease the way for biofuels. More specifically, her amendment would require the EPA to consider the emissions occurring as the result of evaporation and exchange with the air while the fuel is held in storage tanks or transferred on and off tanker trucks. Eshoo's amendment is what as known as a second-degree amendment, which means that was an amendment to an amendment. In this case, Eshoo sought to amend an amendment put forth by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) that would require the EPA, as part of its research and development program, to consider strategies to minimize emissions as the result of the combustion of additives to biofuels. Eshoo pointed out that fuels containing ethanol actually emit more volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or air pollutants than conventional gasoline when burned. She said her amendment went further than Burgess' because it took into account both the burning as well as transport and storage of biofuels. Burgess countered that his amendment was actually stronger because it addressed the "mobile sources, as well as the static sources, that may be a source of emissions." By mobile sources he was referring to the airborne particulates created by the burning of the fuel, and static sources are the result of storage and transport. He also said he would have supported Eshoo's amendment if it was offered as a stand-alone amendment and was not instead a second-degree amendment in the nature of a substitute to his. (Substitute amendments essentially replace the text of the bill or amendment with new language, as was the case here.) Republicans maintained that Burgess' amendment would address both stationary and mobile sources of emissions. Democrats said that Eshoo's language was more comprehensive. Eshoo herself pointed out that the underlying bill focused on infrastructure, and that's why her amendment focused on storage and transport. "We all want VOCs minimized. It is the way biofuels are going to become effective in our country, and how they are stored and how they are handled is going to give rise to what we are all seeking," she said, adding that Burgess and Republicans did not cooperate in making the amendment "a bipartisan effort." In the end, eleven Republicans crossed party lines to support Eshoo's amendment, and Democrats were unanimous in their support. By a vote of 242 to 185, an amendment to require the EPA to consider the impact biofuel additives have on emissions during storage and transport was added to a bill to give the agency $10 billion to study how to convert the nation's pumps to biofuels. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/On passage This vote was on final passage of a spending bill to fund the federal government through fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30. The resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills that Republicans left unfinished at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down by Feb. 15. The measure would generally hold funding at fiscal 2006 levels but provide some funding increases for certain programs, including: veterans' health care, the National Institutes of Health, low-income housing, education, military housing and military base realignment and closing. The legislation also would block a scheduled 2007 cost-of-living pay increase for lawmakers, which by law happens automatically unless Congress passes legislation to prohibit it. Republicans complained both about the substance of the bill - principally the long list of Democratic priorities, including such items as funding for low-income housing vouchers and Amtrak, both of which are opposed by many Republicans - and the prohibition on any floor amendments (see Roll Call 67). Republicans also objected to what they asserted were earmarks in the bill - individual spending items that benefit a particular locale, institution or interest (see Roll Call 70). Democrats maintained that there were no new earmarks in the legislation, just continued funding for programs enacted under previous Republican control of Congress. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said it was not the Democrats' responsibility to clean up the "silly things" approved by past Republican-led Congresses. In the end, 57 Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting for the spending bill, likely because they were afraid to vote to shut down the government, theoretically a possibility if the measure did not pass. Thus, by a final vote of 286 to 140, the House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill to fund the portions of the federal government covered by the nine appropriations bills for fiscal 2007 left outstanding by the previous Republican-led Congress. The measure then headed to the Senate. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Motion to recommit to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to cut more than $500 million for various projects and increase funding by $275 million for military housing, $50 million to combat illicit drugs, $86 million for military construction and family housing and direct $178 million toward deficit reduction This vote represented Republicans' only chance to amend legislation to fund the federal government through fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30. The resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills that Republicans left unfinished at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007. Since the majority Democrats prevented Republicans from amending the bill (see Roll Call 67), this motion to recommit with instructions was the minority's only chance to make substantive changes to the bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Republicans were particularly incensed that the Democrat-drafted bill contained what they believed to be earmarks - individual spending items that benefit a particular locale, interest or organization - in violation of House rules (see Roll Call 70). The motion to recommit was the Republicans' way of trying to remove some of those earmarks and legislative priorities with which they disagreed. In outlining his motion to recommit, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said in addition to the problem with earmarks, "a number of critical programs affecting new law enforcement, military construction and military families have been shortchanged." In order to rectify those perceived errors, the motion to recommit would send the bill back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to eliminate, in Lewis' words, over $500 million in earmarks and "other unnecessary spending," and instead use those funds to "fund the Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to combat methamphetamines and other illicit drugs, restore critically needed funds to military construction and military family housing accounts, and reduce the federal deficit." Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) countered that the motion was simply "nitpicking," and would effectively deny the ability to provide additional funds for veterans health care, education and veterans housing. "I would also say that in a new found and sudden burst of false piety, we are now being chastised because we did not reach back and eliminate" a so-called earmark that was actually approved under Republicans two years ago, Obey said, adding that it was Lewis who chaired the Appropriations Committee at that time. "I don't mind clearing up the mistakes for last year, of the gentleman, I do mind being asked to go back 2 years to clear up your mistakes," Obey said. In the end, the House rejected the motion to recommit on a near-unanimous party-line vote. Only one Republican voted against it, and two Democrats crossed party lines to support the measure. Thus, on a 196 to 228 vote, a Republican effort to send a fiscal 2007 spending bill back to committee with instructions to cut various Democratic-supported projects and increase funding for military housing, combating illicit drugs, military construction and debit reduction failed and the spending bill went forward without amendment. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Democratic motion to table (kill) an appeal to the ruling of the chair against a Republican point of order against the bill on grounds that it violates House rules This vote was on a procedural motion to legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. Republicans complained that the bill violated a new House rule prohibiting what are known as earmarks - provisions tucked into legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale. The resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills that were not completed by the previous Republican-led Congress. The legislation did not contain funding for any new earmarks, but it continued to fund earmarks inserted into previous spending bills. Democrats expressed their pride that the bill was crafted without new earmarks. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said it was the first time in a generation, or perhaps in modern history, that such a spending bill did not include earmarks. "It's a political miracle that Democrats should get credit for. We have already shown more backbone in 150 hours than Republicans did in six years," Cooper said. But Republicans were relentless in their insistence that the bill did contain earmarks. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) raised a point of order against the measure on the grounds that it contained earmarks. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee that crafted the measure, responded that he previously inserted a statement in the Congressional Record that the legislation "does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits" as prohibited by House rules. To which McHenry replied: "Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is stating, simply because legislation states that there are no earmarks, that you can contain thousands of earmarks after that statement. It defies logic and defies reason." McHenry accused Obey of parliamentary shenanigans. "Therefore, it is a very crafty way, and I have got to compliment the gentleman for putting together a very crafty piece of legislation to try to slip this by," McHenry said. "But under these House rules, this is a clear violation of the anti-earmarking provision that is very important to the rules of debate, even when the minority is not able to offer any amendments, even when the minority has no other means of removing congressional earmarks." The Speaker Pro Tempore (a member of the majority party designated by the Speaker to chair the debate in her absence) ruled against McHenry's point of order on grounds that House rules dictate that it is not in order to consider the question of earmarks unless the referring committee chairman had indicated that the legislation contains earmarks. According to the ruling, a point of order may be brought only if the chairman fails to make such a statement in the Congressional Record, which Obey had done. At this point, McHenry appealed the rule of the chair, and Obey moved to table (kill) the appeal. The vote was on the motion to table. In almost a complete party-line vote, the House moved to table the appeal. Only two Republicans crossed party lines to vote with a unanimous Democratic majority to vote to table. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 184, the House dispensed with an appeal of a ruling by the chair that a spending bill to fund the government for the remainder of 2007 did not contain earmarks in violation of House rules, and the legislation proceeded towards an up-or-down vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Motion to table (kill) the motion to reconsider This was another motion by Republicans protesting the way the Democratic majority had handled the crafting and floor consideration of legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. (See also Roll Call 68.) As a way to continue tying up the House and prevent the majority Democrats from swiftly moving through a bill that was all but assured of passage, the Republicans moved to reconsider the previous protest vote, which was a question of whether the House would take up the spending bill. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) moved to reconsider, which essentially asks the House to vote again. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) then moved to table (kill) the motion to reconsider. This vote was on Obey's motion to table. Republicans bitterly protested because the Democratic majority passed rules for debate on the continuing resolution that prevented amendment (see Roll Call 67). Republicans said that was egregious because the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills rolled together in one piece of legislation for expediency. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education, codifying many Democratic priorities with which Republicans didn't agree. The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because the Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a continuing resolution funding the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down. The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills. Democrats defended their approach by pointing out that continuing resolutions typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation that included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels. Obey, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said. On an almost completely party-line vote, the House affirmed its previous decision to proceed with the spending bill. Only one Democrat voted against it, and two Republicans joined with the remaining Democrats present to vote for the motion. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 180, the House dispensed with a procedural tactic by Republicans to further delay consideration of a spending bill to fund the government through the remainder of fiscal 2007. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Question of consideration This vote was on a procedural motion to a bill to fund the government through the end of the 2007 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Raising the question of consideration is literally asking whether the House will take up a particular measure and, as in this case, usually represents a protest motion by the minority. Such procedural motions serve to tie up the business of the House and prevent the majority from getting through its agenda quickly. Republicans bitterly protested because the Democratic majority passed rules for debate that prevented amendment (see Roll Call 67). Republicans said that was egregious because the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills together in one piece of legislation for expediency. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education. The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because the Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a continuing resolution to fund the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down. The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills. Democrats defended their approach by pointing out that continuing resolutions typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation that included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said. Questions of consideration are not debatable under House rules, thus no lawmaker spoke on either side of the issue. Nonetheless, the House split among predictable party lines. Democrats were unanimous in their support for considering the bill, and only four Republicans crossed party lines to join them in affirming that the legislation should be taken up. By a vote of 222 to 179, the House moved to consider a spending bill to fund the federal government for the remainder of the 2007 fiscal year, including budgetary increases over the 2006 spending in the areas of health care, education and veterans' benefits. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
Rules for consideration (H. Res. 116) of the fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government/On passage of the rule This vote was on final passage of the rules for debate on a spending bill to fund the government through the end of the 2007 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The rules of consideration, or rules package as it is commonly known, outline how much time will be given to each side for debate and what amendments will be considered in order. In this case, the majority Democrats proposed what's known as a closed rule barring Republican amendments. Republicans protested this move because they said that the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills together in one piece of legislation for expediency. The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because the Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a CR that funded the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down. The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills. Republicans were indignant at the process that created the bill, and thus bitterly opposed the rules for debate. "It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only one hour of debate," Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said. Democrats defended the closed rule by pointing out that such stopgap spending measures typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation that included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said. Votes on rules packages are usually party-line affairs, and this vote was no exception. All Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but two voted for it, and the motion passed 225-191. Thus, on a party-line vote the House passed rules for debate for a spending bill to fund the federal government through the remainder of fiscal 2007. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
Rules for consideration (H. Res. 116) of the fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and prohibit amendment) This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a spending bill to fund the government through the end of the 2007 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Essentially, this vote forced an end to debate on the rules for consideration in order to bring the measure up for a vote. The rules of consideration, or rules package as it is commonly known, outline how much time will be given to each side for debate and what amendments will be considered in order. In this case, the majority Democrats proposed what's known as a closed rule and barred Republican amendments. Republicans protested the move because they said that the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills together in one piece of legislation for expediency. The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a CR that funded the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down. The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills. Republicans were indignant at the process that created the bill, and thus bitterly opposed the rules for debate. "It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only one hour of debate," Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said. Democrats defended the closed rule by pointing out that such stopgap spending measures typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation, which included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but two voted for it, and the motion passed 227-192. Thus, on a party-line vote the House overcame a procedural hurdle and came one step closer to passing rules for debate for a spending bill to fund the federal government through the remainder of fiscal 2007. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
House rules change to allow limited voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories (H. Res. 93)/On passage This vote was on final passage of a resolution to give limited voting rights on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. The measure sought to change House rules to give the four delegates from Washington, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote when the House meets in the Committee of the Whole, which the House does when debating and voting on amendments to legislation. If the delegates' votes were to decide the winning margin in any particular vote, however, an automatic revote would occur and the delegates would be excluded. The delegates would also be unable to cast votes for final passage on legislation. Because this was an internal House matter, the change could be effected by a change in House rules. The delegates had been given similar voting rights in 1993 under Democratic control of the House, but the privileges were reversed by Republicans when they took power in 1995. According to Congressional Quarterly, of the 404 times delegates were eligible to vote in that two-year period, only three times did their votes prove decisive, triggering an automatic revote; twice the outcome was reversed. Republicans opposed the rules change this year for a number of reasons, including questions about its constitutionality, despite the fact that the voting privileges for delegates had survived court challenge in the mid-1990s. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) also suggested that Democrats were simply aiming to give the appearance of having more votes on their side, as all but one of the delegates are Democrats. "I have to wonder if these same objections would be raised . . . if there were four Republican delegates and one Democratic delegate," replied Del. Donna M.C. Christensen (D-Virgin Is.). Critics of the change also pointed out that four of the delegates represent territories that don't pay federal income taxes, although residents of District of Columbia do. The resolution's supporters countered that residents of the four territories do pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as well as excise taxes. By an almost completely party-line vote, the resolution prevailed. All but one Democrat present voted for the change, and all but one Republican present voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 191 the House voted to modify its internal rules to extend limited floor voting privileges to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
House rules change to allow limited voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories (H. Res. 93)/Question of consideration This vote was on a procedural motion as to whether the House should consider a measure to provide limited voting privileges on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. By bringing up this procedural hurdle, the Republican minority aimed to slow down the House's business and the majority Democrats' ability to accomplish the party's agenda items. Republicans were protesting what they believed to be unfair treatment of the minority in the legislative process. Republicans believed the Democrats were running the House in a way that was unfair to the Republican minority. To protest, the Republicans offered a series of procedural motions designed to take up the House's time and thus prevent the Democrats from carrying forward their agenda. (See also Roll Calls 52, 54 and 55.) Republicans were protesting the way Democrats had fast-tracked the six pieces of legislation the House passed as part of the Democrats' "first 100 hours" agenda, all of which were approved with limited committee involvement and what are known as closed rules, meaning the Republicans couldn't offer amendments. In previous debate, Republicans charged that they had been effectively prevented from participating in the legislative process. A question of consideration is a vote on whether the House will take up a particular piece of legislation. Often, as was the case in this instance, they reflect the minority's dissatisfaction with the way the majority is conducting business and allow the former to register its protest. Every time the House has a recorded vote, committee meetings have to be interrupted and lawmakers have to be called from their offices to come to the floor and vote. Demanding votes on repeated procedural motions is a way for the minority to slow down business in the House. There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted for it, and all Republicans present voted against the question of consideration. By a vote of 224 to 186, the House moved to consider a resolution to give limited voting rights on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories, but Republicans accomplished their goal of tying up the chamber in repeated procedural motions. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
House rules change to allow limited voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories (H. Res. 93)/Motion to table a resolution to disapprove the actions of the Rules Committee This vote represented a Republican protest to the way in which the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee conducted its consideration of an amendment offered by Republicans to a measure to change the House rules to allow delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories to have limited voting privileges on the House floor. Republicans submitted what's known as a privileged resolution, which takes precedence over other business. The resolution sought to state the House's disapproval of the actions of the Democrat-run Rules Committee and direct the committee's chairwoman to prevent future occurrences. At issue was an amendment offered by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) that Kirk offered and later withdrew. He submitted his amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration to have it allowed an up-or-down vote on the House floor. Kirk's amendment would have negated much of the rules change allowing delegates to the House limited voting privileges, but the substance of the amendment wasn't really the issue. According to the Republican-drafted privileged resolution, after Kirk withdrew his amendment, Democrats on the Rules Committee made a special order of business to consider the amendment, even though it is standard committee practice not to further consider amendments that have been withdrawn. At this point, according to the Republican resolution, the Democrats denied repeated Republican requests to get a copy of Kirk's withdrawal notice, which they say had been stamped and acknowledged by the committee. The Republican resolution stated that the "wrongful refusal of the Majority to produce a copy of the letter under debate constituted a breach of the dignity and integrity of the Committee's proceedings," and concluded that "the House of Representatives disapproves of the actions taken by the Committee's Majority and directs the Chairwoman of the Committee to undertake practices to prevent future occurrences." There was no debate on the House floor regarding this resolution, but during previous debate Democrats had insinuated that Republicans withdrew Kirk's amendment because they wanted to pretend they had been completely shut out of the legislative process and having this amendment considered in order "messed up their talking points," in the words of Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) The unrest that fueled this controversy predated this particular event, however, as Republicans were still miffed that they had not been allowed to offer any amendments to the first six bills passed under the new Democratic majority. This vote thus represented a protest among Republican ranks. As such, it commanded almost complete party unity on both sides. All Democrats present but one voted to table the resolution, and all Republicans presented voted against it. By a vote of 223 to 189, the House rejected a Republican attempt to disapprove of the actions of the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee with regard to handling a Republican amendment to a measure that would give limited voting rights on the House floor to the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
Rules governing debate (H. Res. 86) for a resolution to provide limited voting rights for delegates to the House/On adoption of the rule This was the final vote on the rules of consideration for a measure giving limiting voting rights on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. The rules for consideration, also known as the rules package, govern how much time each side will be given for debate and what amendments will be considered in order. The measure the House was to debate was a change to House rules giving the four lawmakers who serve as delegates from Washington, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote when the House meets in the Committee of the Whole, which the House does when debating and voting on amendments to legislation. If the delegates' votes were to decide the winning margin in any particular vote, however, an automatic revote would occur from which the delegates would be excluded. The delegates would also be unable to cast votes for final passage on legislation. The Democratic-dominated Rules Committee approved a rules package allowing for the only amendment brought to the panel to be considered in order on the House floor, but Republicans still opposed the rules package for the resolution because of what Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) described as a "very, very, very" disappointing process. "The thing that is very troubling to me is that we are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice," Dreier said. (The Rules Committee meets upstairs from the House floor.) For their part, the Democrats seemed perplexed by Republican complaints. "This rule allows for consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), adding that the Democrats also offered Republicans the opportunity to offer a substitute measure, which they declined. "If this bill is so awful, they could have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single amendment offered in the Rules Committee." Republicans were nearly unanimous in the opposition to the rules package, and Democrats were completely unanimous in their support for it. Only one Republican voted for it. By a vote of 228 to 188, the House passed the rules of debate for a measure that would give limited voting privileges to the delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands as well as the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
Rules governing debate (H. Res. 86) for a resolution to provide limited voting rights for delegates to the House/Motion to table (kill) the motion to reconsider the previous vote This vote was on a Democratic motion to table (kill) a Republican motion to reconsider the previous vote (see Roll Call 51). That vote dealt with a procedural motion to the rules of consideration for a measure to give limited voting rights on the House floor to the delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands as well as the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico. A lawmaker may offer a motion to reconsider if he or she voted with the prevailing side on the vote in question. Rep. David Dreier (Calif.) was the only Republican to vote for the previous motion, presumably to reserve his right to move to reconsider. Although he did not explain his actions, procedural motions such as these are often made as a way to tie up the House's time when the minority disapproves of the way the majority is conducting business. Republicans had been complaining for days that the Democrats were not giving them say in the legislative process. Democrats claimed that the demands of accomplishing all of the business that Republicans had let languish when they were in the majority necessitated the hardball tactics, and at the same time claimed that they were willing to work with the minority Republicans if they were sincere in their desire to seek harmony between the parties. Upon Dreier's motion to reconsider, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) immediately motioned to table Dreier's motion. Procedural votes such as this one are almost always strict party-line affairs, and this vote was no exception. All of the Democrats present voted for the motion to table, and all of the Republicans opposed it. Thus, debate on the rules package for a resolution providing limited floor-voting privileges to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories was stalled by a partisan squabble over the legislative process and delaying tactics by Republicans. The Democrats ultimately prevailed, however, moving one step closer to adoption of the rules package. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
Rules governing debate (H. Res. 86) for a resolution to provide limited voting rights for delegates to the House/Motion to order the previous question, end debate and prevent amendment This vote was on a procedural motion to a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a measure to provide limited floor-voting privileges for delegates to the House from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. The rules for consideration, also known as the rules package, governs how much time each side will be given for debate and what amendments will be considered in order. The measure the House was to debate was a change to House rules giving the four lawmakers who serve as delegates from Washington, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote when the House meets in the Committee of the Whole, which the House does when debating and voting on amendments to legislation. If the delegates' votes were to decide the winning margin in any particular vote, however, an automatic revote would occur from which the delegates would be excluded. The delegates would also be unable to cast votes for final passage on legislation. The Democratic-dominated Rules Committee approved a rules package allowing for the only amendment brought to the panel to be considered in order on the House floor, but Republicans still opposed the rules package for the resolution because of what Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) described as a "very, very, very" disappointing process. "The thing that is very troubling to me is that we are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice," Dreier said. (The Rules Committee meets upstairs from the House floor.) For their part, the Democrats seemed perplexed by Republican complaints. "This rule allows for consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), adding that the Democrats also offered Republicans the opportunity to offer a substitute measure, which they declined. "If this bill is so awful, they could have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single amendment offered in the Rules Committee." This vote was a motion ordering the previous question on the rules package. Ordering the previous question is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 229 to 191. The House thus overcame a procedural hurdle to approving the rules of debate for a measure that would give limited voting privileges to the delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands as well as the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
Congressional Pension Accountability Act (H.R. 476)/Partisan squabble about who said what on the House floor and motion to strike disparaging remarks; motion to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the chair that the motion to strike was not made in a timely fashion This vote amounted to taking sides in a partisan fist-fight about comments exchanged between Reps. John Shaddeg (R-Ariz.) and Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Calif.). In a debate about reforming the congressional pension laws to prohibit lawmakers convicted of certain crimes from drawing a pension, Millender-McDonald called Shaddeg "disingenuous" and Shaddeg demanded that Millender-McDonald's words be taken down. To be taken down is a parliamentary maneuver that strikes a lawmaker's words from the record. House rules prohibit one lawmaker from impugning the motives of another lawmaker. The Speaker Pro Tempore, the chairman of the floor debate and a designee of the Speaker, ruled that Shaddeg did not make his request in a "timely and appropriate matter." At that point, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) appealed the ruling of the chair, saying, "Just because the chair wasn't listening to the gentleman doesn't mean he wasn't making it in a timely manner." Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) then moved to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the chair. This vote was on Hoyer's motion. The debate preceding the controversy was itself tense and reflected a simmering dissatisfaction by Republicans for being, in their view, continually squeezed out of the legislative process by the majority Democrats. Terry pointed out that the bill under consideration had been amended twice without Republicans being able to see the changes, in his view violating the civility rules put in place at the beginning of the legislative session that require all lawmakers to have access to bills 48 hours before they are voted on. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) made a parliamentary inquiry with the chair to determine for the record whether those changes to the bill had been handwritten on a napkin. "Is anything typed and shared with the minority?" he asked the chair rhetorically. Shadegg was upset after the chair ruled that there was no parliamentary procedure by which he could object to the bill going forward without the 48 hours for lawmakers to examine it under House rules. The chair ruled that because this bill was taken up under a fast-track procedure known as suspension of the rules, the 48-hour rule wasn't in effect and the minority had no recourse. "I think it is most unfortunate that we are considering this bill under suspension with last-minute changes, with limited time for debate, and no opportunity to consider alternatives," Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) said. "I think it is most unfortunate that this bill has become clouded by the hasty effort to get this taken up on suspension with last-minute changes not approved previously by the minority. "The issue is certainly more important than naming a post office, which is what we normally do on suspension," Ehlers continued. The bill would require Members of Congress convicted of crimes related to their official duties to give up their retirement benefits. It was prompted by scandals in the previous legislative session that resulted in prison terms for a few lawmakers, who still got to keep their congressional pensions. The legislation would strip the pensions of lawmakers convicted of felonies, including bribery, defrauding the government and perjury. The Republican revolt actually followed a Democratic move to broaden the bill to include another offense that would deny a lawmaker his pension if convicted: coercing others to lie on a lawmaker's behalf. Ironically, Republicans actually supported making the bill significantly broader, but they opposed the closed process by which the Democrats had broadened it, and complained that it was still too narrow. Republicans said the bill should have included other crimes, such as tax evasion. Despite Republican complaints about the process, however, not one ended up voting against the bill on final passage. This vote, however, represented a Republican protest for how the Democratic majority conducted the debate and crafting of the legislation. In a completely party-line vote, all of the Republicans present voted against the motion to table, and all of the Democrats present voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 223-190, the House tabled the appeal of the chair's ruling that Millender-McDonald's disparaging words against Shaddeg couldn't be taken down because the motion was not made in a timely fashion, put aside the partisan squabble and moved on to an up-or-down vote on the legislation. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/On passage This was the final vote on a bill to repeal certain tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry and direct federal funds instead toward developing renewable and alternative energy sources. The legislation would change several different laws affecting the oil industry, including the 2005 energy legislation, by repealing $14 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies and redirecting that money into a fund to foster research and development of alternatives to fossil fuels. The bill also would eliminate a 2004 tax credit for oil and gas companies, worth $7.6 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years. Furthermore, the bill would require the payment of royalty fees from certain oil and gas companies for offshore drilling rights that had been waived in 1998 and 1999, amounting to about $4.4 billion in royalties annually. In 1995, oil companies were granted waivers from paying royalties on production as an incentive to drill in the Gulf of Mexico when energy prices were low (with the rationale that low oil prices were a disincentive to drill). In a drafting error made by the Interior Department, however, the leases written in 1998 and 1999 left out a crucial mechanism that was supposed to require the companies to pay royalties to the federal government if prices reached over a certain threshold. As a result of this error, energy companies reported record profits in 2006, all the while avoiding royalties to the federal government for the drilling rights. Democrats maintained that the legislation was simply righting past wrongs done to the American taxpayer and undoing freebies to the oil industry. They claimed that the bill simultaneously improved America's energy independence while promoting responsible stewardship of the environment. "We are here to take one small and bipartisan step toward making clean renewable energy a reality in America. And imagine my surprise, Big Oil doesn't think it is a good idea," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "Two years ago, Big Oil muscled their way into a corporate tax break they had never earned and didn't need. They are siphoning off $1 billion a year right out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, and they want it to last forever, right along with $10 billion in quarterly profits that they have been reporting." McDermott pointed out that a Department of Energy study revealed that 86 percent of the country's energy supply is expected to come from oil, coal, and natural gas in the year 2030, the same proportion of the country's energy consumption that carbon provides today, all the while energy prices are expected to climb. "In other words," McDermott said, "if this country does not pursue a radically different approach to energy, we can expect dirty air, more pain at the pump, and more reliance on foreign oil." Many Republicans argued that the legislation violates the sanctity of contracts by retroactively imposing new fees and taxes on the oil industry. They said that Democrats were effectively taxing American oil production, further deepening the country's dependence on foreign oil. "Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy independence," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.). "In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the House chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base. "The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out oil and gas producers for a tax increase," English continued. Despite the fierce rhetoric on both sides, the energy bill passed easily. Thirty-six Republicans crossed party ranks to vote for it, and only four Democrats voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 264 to 163, the House passed legislation that would reign in the tax subsidies to oil and gas producers, require the companies to pay royalty fees on drilling rights and direct the revenue to promote alternative and renewable energy sources. The bill faced uncertain prospects in the Senate. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/Appealing the ruling of the chair that the bill did not meet the criteria to require a three-fifths majority for passage This was a procedural vote on a bill to repeal certain oil and gas tax subsidies and replace them with funds for renewable energy sources. Republicans asserted that because the bill amounted to a tax increase, under House rules it required a three-fifths majority to pass. The chairman of the deliberations on the House floor (an appointee of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) ruled against the Republicans, stating that the bill did not meet the criteria to require a three-fifths majority for passage under House rules. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) appealed the ruling of the chair and demanded a recorded vote. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) then motioned to table (kill) the Blunt appeal of the ruling of the chairman. This vote was on McDermott's motion. Blunt said that the Joint Committee on Taxation had indicated that the section of the bill repealing tax subsidies for oil drilling would result in a $7.6 billion increase in tax receipts between 2007 and 2017, evidence to him that the legislation amounted to a tax increase. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) countered that the bill was not a tax increase on the oil and gas industry. "What we are doing is repealing subsidies, repealing royalties, and asking the oil and gas industry to pay their fair share," Rahall said. "There is no tax increase whatsoever in this bill." Procedural votes of this nature almost always command near or total party unity, and such was the case with this vote. The parties split unanimously, with all of the Republicans present voting against the motion to table and all of the Democrats present voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 230-195, the House rejected an attempt by Republicans to require a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources to obtain a three-fifths majority to achieve passage. The measure moved one step closer to an up-or-down vote, requiring only a simple majority to pass. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/Motion to recommit (send the bill to committees of jurisdiction) This vote was on a procedural motion to a bill aimed at repealing the tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry and redirect federal resources toward developing renewable and alternative energy sources. Republicans bitterly protested what they said was the Democratic majority's refusal to allow the bill to go through the committee process or allow any amendments on the House floor, essentially squeezing Republicans out of the legislative process. (See Roll Call 36.) Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) moved to recommit the bill to the committees of jurisdiction and have the legislation go through the hearings. McCrery said that the issues in the bill are "complex" and thus merit the detailed attention that only the committees could provide to improve the bill. "And because of that complexity and because of the complexity of the issues, not only the tax issues in this legislation but the energy issues as well, this bill deserves regular order," McCrery said. "The way that this bill has been rushed through, without regular process, without opportunity for amendment, or even a substitute, makes a mockery of the legislative process and certainly, I think, shortchanges the important subjects covered in this legislation," McCrery said, adding that the motion to recommit was not a rejection of the bill, merely a desire to "hear expert witnesses, delve into the particulars of the legislation, offer amendments, try to make it better, and then, finally, bring it to the floor for a vote." Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) responded that the "meat and potatoes" of the legislation came through the Natural Resources Committee. "Much of the legislation in this bill, H.R. 6, has been debated, has had hearings held therein, and has even been voted upon by the House of Representatives in the previous Congress," Rahall added. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said that the Ways and Means Committee also had a forum to discuss this bill. "We went over it fairly carefully with experts from two sources at least," McDermott said. "And, clearly, we are making very modest changes. That was clear from the testimony we had, that these were modest changes to the law." When the House makes bigger changes to the law, more robust hearings will be held, McDermott said. Only one Republican broke ranks and joined all 231 Democrats present in voting against the motion to recommit. The final vote was 194 to 232. Thus, the House rejected a Republican attempt to send a bill back to committee repealing certain oil and gas tax subsidies and replacing them with federal funds for renewable resources. The legislation instead moved ahead to a final vote. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/Question of consideration This vote was on a procedural question raised by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to a bill to limit tax benefits for and require royalty payments from the oil and gas industry and use those funds to promote alternative and renewable energies. The rules for debate for the legislation prohibited amendment (See Roll Call 36), a move that Republicans opposed. Because the rules package denied Republicans the ability to offer amendments, Price demanded what's known as a question of consideration, literally whether the House should take up the measure. The move was largely symbolic and served as a venue for Republicans to register their protest. The move came amidst a Democratic pushing to enact more than a half dozen pieces of legislation as part of its "100 hours" agenda, aiming to fulfill campaign promises by enacting bills on subjects ranging from a minimum wage hike to student loan interest rate reductions to changes in the way the House handles intelligence oversight. The energy bill was the last measure included in that agenda, and Democrats said that accomplishing all of the bills in the abbreviated timeframe required streamlining the legislative process. Procedural votes of this nature almost always command near or total party unity, and such was the case with this vote. The parties split unanimously, with all of the Republicans present voting against the moving forward to consider the legislation and all of the Democrats present voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 228-193, the House moved forward with consideration of a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
Outlining the rules of debate for a bill to formulate energy policy (H. Res. 66)/On adoption of the rule This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill to limit tax benefits and require royalty payments for offshore drilling rights from the oil and gas industry and use those funds to promote alternative and renewable energies. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. No amendments were approved when the Rules Committee met on January 16. The Democratic majority was pushing through more than a half dozen pieces of legislation as part of its "100 hours" agenda, aiming to fulfill campaign promises by enacting bills on subjects ranging from a minimum wage hike to student loan interest rate reductions to changes in the way the House handles intelligence oversight. The energy bill was the last measure included in that agenda, and Democrats said that accomplishing all of the bills in the abbreviated time frame required streamlining the legislative process. Democrats pointed out that Republicans often prohibited them from having any say over legislation that was brought to the House floor when Republicans were in the majority. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) responded: "It's not about what we did - it's about what the new majority promised that they were going to do. We are short-circuiting democracy here." Votes on rules packages are almost always divided on party lines. Such was the case with this vote, and the parties split unanimously. All of the Republicans present voted against the motion and all of the Democrats present voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 230-194, the House passed a rules package outlining consideration of a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
Outlining the rules of debate for a bill to formulate energy policy (H. Res. 66)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and prevent amendment) This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill to limit tax benefits and require royalty payments from the oil and gas industry and use those funds to promote alternative and renewable energies. The effect of this motion was to force a vote on the rules for debate. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. No amendments were approved when the Rules Committee met on January 16. The Democratic majority was pushing through more than a half dozen pieces of legislation as part of its "100 hours" agenda, aiming to fulfill campaign promises to enact bills on subjects ranging from a minimum wage hike to student loan interest rate reductions to changes in the way the House handles intelligence oversight. The energy bill was the last measure included in that agenda, and Democrats said that accomplishing all of the bills in the abbreviated time frame required streamlining the legislative process. Democrats pointed out that Republicans often prohibited them from having any say over legislation that was brought to the House floor when Republicans were in the majority. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) responded: "It's not about what we did - it's about what the new majority promised that they were going to do. We are short-circuiting democracy here." This vote was on a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case with this vote, as the parties split unanimously with all of the Republicans present voting against the motion and all of the Democrats present voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 231-194, the House moved to end debate and prohibit amendment on a resolution providing consideration for a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
College Student Relief Act (H.R. 5)/Motion to recommit with instructions to apply the subsidized interest rate reductions only to graduates earning less than $65,000 annually and to active-duty military personnel This vote was on a procedural motion to a bill to cut the interest rate on subsidized college loans in half over the next five years. Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) made a motion to recommit the bill to the Education and Labor Committee with an amendment that would have applied the subsidized interest rate reductions only to graduates who earned less than $65,000 annually and to active-duty military personnel. The motion also would have directed the federal government to use the remaining funds allocated in this bill for deficit reduction or for an increase in Pell grants, which go to the neediest students and do not need to be repaid. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure The underlying bill was one of the "100 hours" agenda priorities for the new Democratic Congress, and aimed to fulfill one of the party's 2006 midterm campaign promises. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said she was "very pleased that our congressional leadership has made cutting interest rates on student loans one of its top priorities for the first 100 hours of this Congress." According to Matsui, a recent study demonstrated that the legislation would save the average student borrower attending California state schools this year almost $2,500 over the life of the loan. "For students beginning college in the year 2011, the legislation will save almost $5,000," Matsui said. "We will need to do more to make college affordable, but my constituents in Sacramento who are struggling to afford college will welcome this very important first step." Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) said the legislation would help 5.5 million undergraduate students attend college and represented the first step House Democrats would take to make college more affordable. Republicans countered that the legislation would do little to increase college access. "We're talking about lowering the interest rate when we should be talking about the cost of tuition," McKeon said. Republicans maintained that their amendment would better allocate federal resources toward the priority of making higher education affordable to all. Democrats were unanimous in their support of the underlying bill without amendment, and nine Republicans broke ranks to join them in opposing the motion to recommit. By a vote of 186 to 241, the House rejected a Republican effort to send the bill back to committee with instructions to apply the reduced interest rates only to students earning less than $65,000 after college and to active-duty military personnel. Thus, legislation reducing the interest rates on subsidized college loans by half over the next five years proceeded toward final passage without Republican-sponsored changes limiting its applicability by income and military status. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
Outlining rules for debate (H. Res. 65) on the College Student Relief Act (H.R. 5)/On adoption of the resolution This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the consideration of a bill that would cut interest rates in half over five years for undergraduate students with federally subsidized student loans. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. This type of resolution is commonly known as a rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) pointed out that the Democratic leadership was rushing the bill through the House without the normal legislative process and excluding minority involvement. "I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process," Sessions said. "This is rhetoric that does not turn into a sound proposal," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)."Democrats and Republicans should have the opportunity to offer amendments to make this a much better piece of legislation." Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that the American people were demanding quick action on this issue, one of the priorities outlined by the Democrats during the 2006 campaign. The bill was included in the Democrats' "100 hours" legislation, the agenda for the Congress' first 100 hours in session. Many Republicans opposed the underlying legislation because they said it would do nothing to make college more affordable. Democrats countered that because it would cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next five years, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, it would help over 5 million more students attend college. Votes on procedural motions such as approving the rules package are almost always party-line affairs, with the minority unanimous in its opposition and the majority supporting the rules for consideration drafted by their party. Such was the case for this vote. By a strictly party-line vote of 233 to 190, with all of the Democrats present in favor and all of the Republicans present opposed, the House voted to approve the rules for debate for a measure to cut subsidized student loan rates in half over the next five years. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
Outlining rules for debate (H. Res. 65) on the College Student Relief Act (H.R. 5)/Ordering the previous question (end debate and possibility of amendment) This vote was on a procedural motion to a resolution outlining the consideration of a bill that would cut interest rates in half over five years for undergraduate students receiving federally subsidized student loans. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is commonly known as the rules package. Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) pointed out that the Democratic leadership was rushing the bill through the House without the normal legislative process, thus preventing minority involvement. "I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process," Sessions said. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that the American people were demanding quick action on this issue, one of the priorities outlined by the Democrats during the 2006 campaign. The bill was included in the Democrats' "100 hours" legislation, the agenda for the Congress' first 100 hours in session. Many Republicans opposed the underlying legislation because they said it would do nothing to make college more affordable. Democrats countered that because it would cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next five years, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, it would help over 5 million students attend college. This vote was on a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 225-191. Thus, the House moved on step closer to approving the rules for debate for a bill to cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next five years. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Banks/Credit Card Companies EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
Requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare (H.R. 4)/On passage This vote was on final passage of legislation to require the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department to negotiate with drug companies on behalf of beneficiaries in the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The bill does not specify how the HHS secretary should conduct such negotiations, just that the federal government would have to leverage its buying power to command lower prices from prescription drug manufacturers. The bill prohibits the HHS secretary from establishing a restrictive list of covered drugs, thereby ensuring that he or she has the necessary bargaining power to freeze a particular drug out of the program if a favorable price cannot be negotiated. The measure would represent the first changes to the Medicare drug law enacted in 2003 and represents the delivery of a campaign promise by Democrats to amend the 2003 law to reflect price leverage that they believe should have been in the original legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation. The legislation's backers said the bill would allow the secretary to drive down the prices of prescription drugs by using Medicare's power to buy in bulk, a premise challenged by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Congress' budgetary research arm said the bill "would have a negligible effect on federal spending." Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, whose committee drafted the legislation, said that CBO's estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. "After what the Republicans and CBO told us about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill, I would not suggest taking their advice about the cost." Rep. Thelma Drake (R-Va.) rose to opposed the bill on grounds that "the current private sector approach has resulted in more choices available to Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously keeping costs below previous projections," adding that the majority of seniors are "satisfied" with the Medicare's prescription drug coverage. "Seniors across America want their doctors, not the federal government, to choose the most effective drugs," Drake added. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) said just the opposite was true, that most seniors don't understand, "why the Medicare program has been prohibited from negotiating for lower drug prices. Of course there is an explanation: a deal was struck to benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of our seniors." Support for the bill among Democrats was unanimous, and 24 Republicans broke ranks and voted for the measure. Thus, by 255 to 170, the House voted to require the federal government to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prescription drug prices for beneficiaries of the Medicare drug program. The bill then moved to the Senate, where support for some version of the legislation was mounting despite President Bush's promised veto. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
Requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare (H.R. 4)/Motion to recommit with instructions to add language that ensures that beneficiaries will not be restricted in their access to prescription drugs and that the negotiations will not result in the price increase of prescription drugs for any group This vote was on a Republican amendment to a bill requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare. Republicans asserted that, as drafted, the bill would have the effect of restricting senior citizen's drug choices, limiting the number of retail outlets where they could have their prescriptions filled and possibly result in a price increase for veterans' prescription drugs. Their amendment aimed to prevent those occurrences. Democrats said the Republican claims were ludicrous. The underlying legislation that the Republicans wanted to attach this amendment to requires the federal government to leverage its buying power to command lower prices from prescription drug manufacturers. The bill prohibits the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary from establishing a restrictive list of covered drugs, thereby ensuring that he or she has the necessary bargaining power to freeze a particular drug out of the program if a favorable price cannot be negotiated. The measure would represent the first changes to the Medicare drug law enacted in 2003 and the fulfillment of a campaign promise by Democrats to amend the 2003 law to include price leverages that they believe should have been in the original legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the bill. The power of the HHS secretary to freeze out certain drugs in order to better negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices is the provision that most concerned Republicans. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said that some very expensive drugs that serve small segments of the population, like HIV drugs, could be excluded from the prescription drug benefit under this bill. Barton also said in order to achieve cost savings the HHS secretary may have to require that seniors get their drugs via mail order. He said that the motion to recommit would simply ensure that seniors could still get their drugs at their local pharmacies. "I don't believe, based on the evidence, that the Democrats' plan can reduce prescription drug prices without reducing seniors' prescription drug choices, or without devastating local pharmacies, or without raising drug prices for our veterans," said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.). Furthermore, McCrery said, the Republican motion "would ensure that requiring the HHS Secretary to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices would not directly result in increasing drug prices for veterans, because as we have seen in the past, when the government gets involved in setting prices in other areas, prices to veterans go up." Democrats said during floor debate that Republicans were making up problems. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said his wife, who is a pharmacist, "had had to turn her television set off because she has heard so many untruths and misinformation coming from the Republican side of the aisle during this debate here today." "But let me be clear about this: A 'yes' vote for the motion to recommit is a vote for the big drug manufacturers, and a 'no' vote on the motion to recommit is a vote for America's seniors," Ross continued, adding that the Democrats were "trying to correct a wrong that occurred back in 2003." Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), said that as the only registered pharmacist in Congress, "I can tell you one thing for certain, my distinguished colleagues across the aisle, while well meaning, absolutely don't know turnip greens from butter beans about what they are talking about." The procedural mechanism Republicans attempted to amend the bill is known as a motion to recommit with instructions. A motion to recommit is a move to send the resolution back to committee for revision and represents the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. In the end, only one Democrat crossed party lines to join with Republicans to vote for the motion to recommit. The support among Republicans was unanimous. The final vote was 196-229, and the motion to recommit failed. Thus, the House rejected a Republican effort to add language to a bill requiring the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of America's seniors for drug prices to ensure that the legislation didn't negatively affect the availability or price of pharmaceuticals. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 3)/On passage This vote was on final passage of a bill to broaden federal spending on embryonic stem cell research. The legislation would allow federal grants to be used for research on embryos donated by in vitro fertility clinics so long as the embryos were not created for scientific purposes and otherwise would be thrown away. The donors of the embryos would also have to give their consent and could not be paid for the embryos. Additionally, the bill would authorize the Health and Human Services Department to conduct research involving human embryonic stem cells that meet specific criteria, regardless of when stem cells were derived from a human embryo. The political and policy fight over this issue began in 2001, when President Bush issued an executive order that allowed federal funding only on embryonic stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001. Bush vetoed an identical bill last year, and the House fell 51 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto. Many Republicans liken research on embryos to abortion, which they oppose as unethical. Supporters of the research, including most Democrats, believe that it promises life-saving medical treatments. They point out that the research is going to be done anyway, and by denying federal funds the United States is simply allowing private research centers around the world to get ahead in curing various diseases. Republican critics counter that research on stem cells has yet to yield life-saving treatments. Bush adamantly opposes the research and has once again threatened to veto the legislation. In a statement, the White House called the bill "seriously flawed legislation that would undo essential ethical protections, and slow the development of new techniques that avoid bio-ethical concerns." Nonetheless, the House passed the bill by a vote of 253-174, still well short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to override the threatened veto. Thirty-seven Republicans joined all but 16 Democrats in voting for the measure. The bill then headed to the Senate. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 3)/Motion to recommit the bill to the Energy and Commerce Committee with instructions to include language prohibiting entities involved in a certain type of cell transfer associated with human cloning from receiving federal funding This vote was on an amendment Republicans sought to add to legislation broadening federal spending on embryonic stem cell research. The amendment would have prohibited research institutions involved in a certain type of cell transfer associated with human cloning from receiving federal funding for stem cell research. Democrats called the amendment a "poison pill." The underlying legislation would allow federal grants to be used for research on embryos donated by in vitro fertility clinics so long as the embryos were not created for scientific purposes and otherwise would be thrown away. The political and policy fight over this issue began in 2001, when President Bush issued an executive order that allowed federal funding only on embryonic stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001. The procedural mechanism Republicans attempted to amend the bill is known as a motion to recommit with instructions. A motion to recommit is a move to send the resolution back to committee for revision and represents the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. In this case, Republicans sought to send the bill back to the Energy and Commerce Committee with instructions to deny federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to institutions that engage in human cloning. On multiple occasions, the House has voiced its strong opposition to human cloning for both reproductive purposes as well as for research purposes. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) said that some of the labs that would receive money under this legislation are currently engaged in human cloning research. According to Weldon, "they are pursuing, through the process that they refer to as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is human cloning, an agenda to create disease-specific cell lines for embryonic stem cells." He said that at the very least Congress should "make sure that, as we move forward in this brave new world of using human embryos in research and discarding them, that at least we are not incentivizing cloning." Democrats called the Republican effort "a desperate attempt to derail ethical scientific research on embryonic stem cell research," in the words of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). She pointed out that not a single person in the House supports reproductive cloning, and the Republican motion was unrelated and a distraction. "The motion is a thinly veiled attempt to define human life in a manner that can have profound implications beyond the issues raised in H.R. 3," DeGette said. "What the frank intent of this motion is, is to gut H.R. 3 by strapping it with undefined standards and terms that are extraneous to the bill. The motion is a procedural vote without meaning. It is a ruse, a red herring designed to frighten, to obfuscate and to distract." Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) went further, saying that the motion was "a poison pill in the greatest way." Furthermore, he said, "it actually eliminates part of the research which may be essential in the implanting of the embryonic stem cells eventually in a human being called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which really doesn't relate ultimately to the human reproductive cloning." A majority of the House agreed. By a vote of 189 to 238, the motion to recommit was rejected. Eleven Democrats crossed party lines to support it, but their votes were more than canceled out by the 18 Republicans who crossed party lines in opposition. The House thus defeated a motion to add language to an embryonic stem cell research bill to prohibit institutions practicing somatic cell nuclear transfer from receiving federal funds. The bill broadening federal support for embryonic stem cell research went forward without amendment. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
Minimum wage increase (H.R. 2)/On passage This was the vote on final passage of a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. Getting to this point was a victory for Democrats, who fought off multiple attempts by Republicans to add amendments to the bill such as tax breaks for small businesses (see Roll Call 16) and a provision that would allow employers to keep paying the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour if they provided health insurance to their employees (see Roll Call 17). House Democrats were steadfast in their desire to pass a "clean" version of the legislation. Republicans maintained that the bill would have a significant adverse effect on small businesses and many opposed the measure because it did not contain tax breaks for those employers. Despite near unanimous party unity on those votes, 82 Republicans ended up voting with all 233 Democrats present in passing a minimum wage hike that didn't include tax breaks for small businesses. The final vote was 315-116. Despite the overwhelming House support for a "clean" version of the legislation, the measure faced near-certain amendment in the Senate, where Democrats didn't have enough support among Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to end debate and bring the bill to a vote without adding tax breaks for small businesses. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
Minimum wage increase (H.R. 2)/Motion to recommit with instructions to include language allowing employers that provide health benefits to their employees to pay the existing minimum wage of $5.15 per hour This vote dealt with a Republican proposal to allow employers providing health insurance benefits to keep paying those employees a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour instead of the increased minimum wage of $7.25 per hour that the bill would phase in over the next two years. The minimum wage bill would represent the first increase in a decade. The rules for consideration for the legislation barred Republicans from offering an alternative bill or amendments on the House floor. That meant that if they wanted to force a vote on the changes they sought, their only parliamentary option was a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit is the minority's last, and often, as in this case, only chance to make substantive changes to legislation before a final vote. Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) moved that the bill be sent back to the Education and Labor Committee with instructions to add the provision, a move known as a motion to recommit with instructions. McKeon said his provision would "would ensure that if an employer offers health coverage to his or her workers, an incredibly costly yet incredibly important employee benefit, then this employer should not be further burdened with a 41 percent minimum wage mandate imposed by H.R. 2, a mandate thrust upon these employers without any protections at all for small business and their workers." Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) added that the minimum wage hike would force many employers in her state that are providing health insurance to their employees to stop doing so because they will no longer be able to afford it. "This provision would encourage more small and medium-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees," she said. But Democrats countered that the American people had asked them to provided a minimum wage increase without dilution. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said it has taken 10 years to get "an up-and-down vote on whether the poorest people in our nation, who are working every day and, at the end of the year, end up poor, deserve a raise." Miller pointed out that the McKeon language didn't indicate whether the health care coverage offered by employers to avoid paying employees the increased minimum wage would have to be affordable, just that they offer some health care package. "It doesn't say what the deductibles are, the copayments, which I am sure if you are a minimum wage worker at $5.15 today, a wage that is 10 years old, I am sure you can pay the copayments and the deductibles and the premiums. That will not be a problem," Miller added with sarcasm. "What is it you don't understand about being poor?" He added that the American people "didn't ask us to trade in the increase in the minimum wage for some phantom health care proposal." In the end, 54 Republicans sided with all 233 Democrats present in supporting a "clean" minimum wage bill. By a vote of 144-287, the House voted to reject a motion to recommit that would have sent the bill back to committee to add a provision allowing employers that provide health coverage for their employees to opt out of paying those employees an increased minimum wage. A bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years went forward without Republican amendment. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
Minimum wage increase (H.R. 2)/On appealing a ruling that a Republican motion to send the bill back to committee to add tax breaks for small businesses wasn't allowable This vote dealt with a procedural motion to send a bill to increase the minimum wage back to committee to add small-business tax breaks. The Democratic lawmaker picked by the Speaker to oversee the House floor debate ruled that the Republican motion to send the bill back to committee to add tax cuts was not "germane." Germaneness, as defined in the House rules, requires that debate and amendments are relevant to the subject under consideration, in this case the minimum wage bill. Questions of germaneness are determined by the Speaker or her designee and are subject to the approval of the House. The underlying legislation would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years, the first increase in a decade. Republicans believed that the increase would have a significant negative impact on small businesses. They wanted to include tax breaks they believed were necessary to offset the impact on employers. The House Democratic leadership had previously expressed its desire to deal with the small business tax breaks separately and pass a "clean" version of the minimum wage hike. The rules for consideration for the legislation barred Republicans from offering an alternative bill or amendments on the House floor, leaving a motion to recommit as their only parliamentary tool to effect changes to the bill. The motion to recommit would have sent the bill back to the Education and Labor Committee with instructions to add small-business tax cuts. By ruling that the motion to recommit was not germane, the Democratic leadership was essentially saying that the small business tax breaks were not sufficiently relevant to a bill to raise the minimum wage to merit consideration. In addition to the small-business tax breaks, the motion to recommit with instructions also included a provision allowing small businesses to band together to buy health insurance. The White House indicated that it supported both provisions. The Republican measure was drafted by Reps. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) and Jim McCrery (R-La.). "Small businesses are the backbone of our economy," McKeon said. "They create two-thirds of our nation's new jobs, and they represent 98 percent of the new businesses in the United States. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever." Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said that it was more important to pass a clean version of the legislation. "We have waited for over 10 years to have this vote on the minimum wage, a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country who have worked at a wage that is 10 years old," Miller said. By a vote of 232-197, the House moved to uphold the ruling of the chair that the Republican motion to recommit was not germane. The House divided on strictly party lines. Thus, Democrats were able to stop a Republican attempt to add small business tax breaks to the legislation, and a "clean" version of the minimum-wage hike moved toward a final vote. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (H.R. 1)/On passage This vote was on passage of a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 9/11 Commission issued its final report in 2004. The then-Republican-led Congress followed with a broad overhaul of intelligence operations, but Democrats complained that some recommendations by the bipartisan commission had been ignored. During the 2006 midterm elections Democrats campaigned on a promise to implement the remainder of the commission's recommendations. The bill encompassing those changes became H.R. 1, symbolically the most important bill of the session. The measure would require all cargo loaded onto passenger jets and on ships coming into U.S. ports to be screened. It would further authorize new domestic intelligence and emergency-communications grant programs for local law enforcement officials, as well as create a new formula for distributing homeland security grants to state and local governments resulting in more money to large, metropolitan areas. Republican critics of the bill pointed out that it still did not go as far as the commission had recommended in certain areas, including declassifying the intelligence budget. Democrats pointed out that their bill went much further in fully implementing the commission's recommendations than Republicans were able to accomplish during their control of both the House and Senate in the two years following the commission's report. Republicans also critiqued the bill because it did not specify how specific initiatives would be funded. The sponsor of the bill, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said that he would have included more funding allocations if there had been more time to draft the bill. Republicans such as Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking lawmaker on the Appropriations Committee, pointed out that there is "no way we can afford these programs without raising fees or taxes." Despite criticism of the bill from their party, 68 Republicans ended up voting for the measure. Democratic support was unanimous, and the final vote was 299-128. Thus, the House passed legislation implementing many of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a requirement that all cargo entering the United States be screened, a provision that drew a possible veto threat from the White House. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (H.R. 1)/Motion to recommit with instructions This was a procedural vote on a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The motion represented Republican efforts to remove language in the legislation that urged the president to bring a White House-created nuclear non-proliferation program to the United Nations for authorization. One section of the bill contained a provision known as sense of Congress, nonbinding language that reflects the sentiments of a majority of lawmakers on a particular subject. In this case, the nonbinding language urged the president to work with the U.N. Security Council to authorize the Proliferation Security Initiative. This program, first proposed by President Bush in 2003 and housed within the State Department, would create international agreements to allow the United States and its allies to search planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and seize illegal weapons or missile technologies. The motion under consideration in this vote would send the bill back to the Foreign Affairs Committee with instructions to remove the language urging the president to seek authorization for the program by the U.N. If successful, the motion to recommit would send the bill back to the Foreign Affairs Committee with specific instructions to remove the section and add language stating that the U.S. government is solely responsible for protecting American security. Many Republicans believe that signing international non-proliferation agreements undermines U.S. sovereignty. Many Democrats believe the international governing body is the best way to safeguard world peace, reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and thus ensure American safety. The motion to recommit failed on an almost unanimous party-line vote. Only two Democrats joined all present Republicans in voting for the motion to recommit. By a vote of 198-230, the motion to recommit the bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee failed. Thus, a bill to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission went forward with nonbinding language urging the president to work with the United Nations to authorize an international program to allow the United States and its allies to search planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and seize illegal weapons or missile technologies. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
To establish a new House intelligence oversight committee (H. Res. 35)/On adoption of the resolution This was the final vote on a resolution to establish a new House oversight committee to handle intelligence matters. The 13-member Select Intelligence Oversight Committee will be a subcommittee of the Appropriations panel and be comprised of lawmakers from both the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. The subcommittee will review spending on spy activities and recommend spending levels to the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, which will then determine the actual funding. Because creating a new committee is an internal House matter, this resolution needed neither approval by the Senate nor the president's signature. The move to create the new panel came out of the 9/11 Commission Report released a couple of years go that said, among other things, that "Congressional oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional." The commission recommended creating a joint House-Senate committee in the model of the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, or else create a single committee in each chamber to handle both intelligence appropriations (spending) as well as what's known as authorization (drafting legislation to give federal agencies the authority to spend that money in specific ways). Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) pointed out during floor debate that the commission subsequently recommended creating a dedicated appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters as a third option. That latter recommendation, he said, was exactly what the House set to accomplish with this resolution. "The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will strengthen the oversight process by providing a mechanism for considering intelligence funding and the way appropriated funds are spent on intelligence activities from the combined perspectives of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees," Hastings said. Republicans were upset at both the committee structure itself as well as the political process that created it, however. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) asked his colleagues on the House floor whether this resolution meets Congress' duty to effectively oversee the intelligence agencies and constitutional obligation to "provide for the common defense." His answer was "absolutely not." Republicans were further angered by the way members of the committee would be appointed exclusively by the Speaker instead of dividing the appointments between the Speaker and the Minority Leader, as is the practice for other committee assignments. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said such a move was unacceptable. "It means that our leader has no say in who is appointed to this task force or committee," he said, and added toward Hastings, "you would be up here screaming bloody murder if we tried to pull that stunt on you." On the substance of the resolution, LaHood added to Dreier's remarks by saying, "The gentleman knows full well we need no more bureaucracy to bog down the intelligence community." Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) further critiqued the resolution on the grounds that the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that Congress enact a separate appropriations bill for the intelligence agencies instead of wrapping intelligence funding in a classified section of the Defense budget, which this measure would not do. "As currently drafted, I have serious concerns that the proposed Intelligence Oversight Panel will have very little control over the actual funding decisions and will only succeed in confusing the process and adding to its complex bureaucracy," Castle added. Democrats acknowledged that the resolution didn't completely follow the commission's guidelines but maintained that it nonetheless accomplished the commission's goals. "At long last, we will have one panel the intelligence community cannot ignore," said Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.). Obey pointed out that the committee will have a "beefed up" investigative staff. In the end, eight Republicans broke rank and voted for the resolution. They joined all 231 Democrats present. The remaining 188 Republicans present voted "no." Thus, on a vote of 239-188, the House voted to create a new Appropriations subcommittee specifically dedicated to intelligence spending. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
To establish a new House intelligence oversight committee (H. Res. 35)/Motion to recommit This vote was a procedural vote on the creation of a new House oversight committee to handle intelligence matters. The 13-member Select Intelligence Oversight Committee will be a subcommittee of the Appropriations panel and be comprised of lawmakers from both the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. The subcommittee will review spending on spy activities and recommend spending levels to the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, which will then determine the actual funding. Because creating a new committee is an internal House matter, this resolution needed neither approval by the Senate nor the president's signature. The move to create the new subcommittee came out of the 9/11 Commission Report released a couple of years go that said, among other things, that "Congressional oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional." The commission recommended creating a joint House-Senate committee in the model of the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, or else create a single committee in each chamber to handle both intelligence appropriations (spending) as well as what's known as authorization (drafting legislation to give federal agencies the authority to spend that money in specific ways). Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) pointed out during floor debate that the commission subsequently recommended creating a dedicated appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters as a third option. That latter recommendation, he said, was exactly what the House set to accomplish with this resolution. Republicans were upset at both the committee structure itself as well as the political process that created it, however. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) asked his colleagues on the House floor whether this resolution meets Congress' duty to effectively oversee the intelligence agencies and constitutional obligation to "provide for the common defense." "Absolutely not" was his answer. He pointed out that the House already has too many subcommittees to which the intelligence agencies have to report, thereby gumming up the process and wasting precious energy on overlapping reporting duties. Furthermore, he said, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were very clear in recommending either a joint House-Senate committee or a single authorizing and appropriations committee in each chamber dedicated to intelligence matters. "The proposal in front of us today does neither of those things that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In fact, it goes in completely the opposite direction," Dreier continued. Republicans were further angered by the way members of the committee would be appointed exclusively by the Speaker instead of dividing the appointments between the Speaker and the Minority Leader, as is the practice for other committee assignments. Democrats acknowledged that the resolution didn't completely follow the commission's guidelines but maintained that it nonetheless accomplished the commission's goals. "At long last, we will have one panel the intelligence community cannot ignore," said Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.). Obey pointed out that the committee will have a "beefed up" investigative staff. This vote was on a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit is a move to send the resolution back to committee for revision and represents the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. As is common on such procedural votes, the vote on the motion to recommit fell entirely on party lines. All 195 Republicans present voted for it, and all 232 Democrats present voted against it. The motion to recommit with instructions thus failed, and a resolution to create an appropriations subcommittee focusing on intelligence matters cleared a procedural hurdle and moved towards a final vote over Republican objections that it did not accomplish the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/On adopting Title 5 of the resolution Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the ground rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. In the Democrats' view, the rules package serves to reign in the abuses of House civility and corruption they perceived since the chamber underwent Republican control in 1995. This vote was on adoption of Title 5 of the resolution, which included provisions to pave the way for consideration of legislation to implement the Democratic leadership's so-called "100 hours" plan at a time to be designated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). During the 2006 campaign, Democrats promised that if they took power they would spend the first 100 hours of their governance cleaning up what they deemed Republican abuses of civility and ethics as well as pass a series of bills blocked by the previous Congress. Contained under "special orders of business" in the rules package, the agenda included an increase in the minimum wage, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices, a measure implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report to enhance intelligence oversight and legislation broadening the stem-cell research that can be conducted with federal funds. Additionally, this section of the rules package renamed the International Relations Committee, reverting back to its Foreign Affairs Committee name, as had been the case in past Congresses that were under Democratic control. The Resources Committee also was changed to the Natural Resources Committee; the Science panel became the Science and Technology Committee; Government Reform was renamed the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The last name change also carried with it a reform to give the committee authority to subpoena witnesses to testify under oath. All 232 Democrats present voted to enact Title 5 of the rules package, and all 200 Republicans present voted against it. Thus, the final title of the rules package for the 110th Congress was passed with a number of reforms and paved the way for the Democrats' "first 100 hours" of priority legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/Motion to commit with instructions This vote dealt with whether the House would send back to committee for revision a set of rules that would govern the conduct of lawmakers for the coming two-year session. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the ground rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. In the Democrats' view, the rules package serves to reign in the abuses of House civility and corruption they perceived since the chamber underwent Republican control in 1995. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to commit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. Predictably, the motion failed on a party-line vote, with all 232 Democrats present voting against it and all 200 Republicans present voting for it. Although there were many provisions in the Democrat-drafted rules package that Republicans wanted to see changed, the minority party most wanted to thwart the new Democratic majority's effort to enact the so-called "100 hours" legislation that Democrats had promised on the campaign trail. The 100-hours agenda includes bills to raise the minimum wage, implement intelligence provisions of the 9/11 Commissions' report, open up more federally funded stem-cell research and allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices. The fifth and final title of the rules package contained several parliamentary provisions that paved the way for passage of those measures, and thus preventing the rules package from going into effect as written would have served to stop the Democrats from enacting their campaign promises. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans were shut out in their attempts to change the rules package before it was enacted and to prevent the Democrats from pushing ahead with the 100-hours agenda with the parliamentary wheels already greased. (run on) The fifth and final title of the rules package for the 110th Congress headed for an up-or-down vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/On adopting Title 4 of the resolution This vote determined whether a section of the ground rules for the 110th Congress covering "fiscal responsibility" would be adopted. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the ground rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote was on adoption of Title 4 of the resolution, titled "fiscal responsibility." This part of the rules package comprises changes to the budget process, including reinstatement of pay-as-you-go requirements for new tax-cut or entitlement programs. PAYGO rules, as they are known, mandate that any new tax cuts or expansion of entitlement programs have to be offset by cuts to other parts of the budget or tax increases. They require that budget-busting legislation be subject to what's known as a point of order, a parliamentary hurdle that the legislation would have to overcome in order to move forward. During debate, Democrats accused President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress of frittering away the large budget surpluses they inherited after the 2000 elections and turning them into record deficits. The national debt is now approaching $9 trillion. "The one thing we can say about George Bush and his economic policy is: 'We are forever in your debt,' " said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "On day number two [of Democratic control], Democrats have said, 'Enough is enough with running up the debt of this country. We're going to put our fiscal house in order.' " Republicans criticized the Democrats' PAYGO efforts for being weak, as the measure is only enforceable through House rules, which are easily waived by the majority party. Indeed, the measure doesn't have the same teeth as 1990s-era PAYGO language that was enacted into law. Democrats pointed out, however, that it was a Republican Congress that let that law expire. The House Democratic leadership has indicated they will pursue PAYGO legislation in the beginning of this session, but pointed out that it would not be possible without the support of the White House and the Senate. PAYGO rules in the House were the best they could do for now, they said. This title of the rules package also prohibits what are known as earmarks unless the provisions' sponsors are listed in the report accompanying the bill. Earmarks are provisions tucked legislation that often benefit small, private interests or a lawmaker's own district. It has been the practice in recent Congresses for such provisions to be slipped in anonymously without public scrutiny. Under Title 4, the same reporting requirements apply to earmarks in bills that go to the floor bypassing the normal committee process as well as earmarks added in conference committees with the Senate. Furthermore, Title 4 also prohibits any lawmaker from conditioning inclusion of an earmark based on how another lawmaker voted. Such a practice had become relatively commonplace under Republican control of the chamber. Forty-eight Republicans joined all 232 present Democrats in voting to enact Title 4 of the House rules package for the 110th Congress. Thus, pay-as-you-go budget rules and banning anonymous earmarks became part of the standing rules of the House for the next two years. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
H. Res. 5 Providing for the consideration of House rules package for the 110th Congress/On Agreeing to the resolution This vote determined the ground rules for the House's consideration of what's known as the rules package for the 110th Congress. Only after this resolution was agreed to could the House move to consider the rules package itself. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote set the rules for how the 110th Congress rules package would be debated, that is how much floor time each side received to debate each section, as well as parliamentary logistics. All 232 Democrats voted for the measure, as well as three Republicans, and the measure passed with 195 Republican "noes." The rules for debate thus set, the House could then turn its attention to debating the rules package for the 110th Congress. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
H. Res. 5 Providing for the consideration of House rules package for the 110th Congress/Motion to recommit with instructions This vote determined the ground rules for the House's consideration of what's known as the rules package for the 110th Congress. The motion being considered was whether to send back to committee for revision the guidelines for debate of the rules package for the whole two-year session. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote was a motion to recommit with instructions. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to recommit is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. In this case, the Republicans were seeking an opportunity to determine how the rules package would be considered, such as how much floor time they would have to debate the measure. This kind of procedural vote is usually highly disciplined within each party, with the minority party voting for it and the majority against it. In this instance, both parties collected total conformity among their ranks, and all 232 Democrats voted against it and all 199 Republicans present voted for it. The motion thus failed. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans were shut out in their last attempt to modify the rules of consideration for the rules package for the 110th Congress. The rules of consideration thus moved to a final vote, paving the way for the rules package for the entire Congress itself to be adopted. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
H. Res. 5 Providing for the consideration of House rules package for the 110th Congress/Motion to end debate and bring to a final vote This vote was on whether to end debate on a resolution that determined the ground rules for the House's consideration of standing rules that govern lawmakers' conduct for the 110th Congress. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 222-179. By successfully ordering the previous question, the Democrats moved toward establishing rules of consideration for how the rules package for the entire Congress would be debated. As a result, the Democrats retained control of the floor and moved one step closer to adopting the rules they wrote for the 110th Congress. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 3546 Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 3718 Pool and Spa Safety Act |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 5682 Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Promotion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
On Passage: H R 6406 To modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1100 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 6406, to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for othe purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Motion to Agree to Senate Amendment with Amendment: H R 6111 Tax Relief and Health Care Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
Motion to Amend the House Amendment to Senate Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6111 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1099 Relating to consideration of the bill H.R. 6111 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending. |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1101 Waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682 and against its consideration. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1096 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6099 Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1176 Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5602 To Authorize the Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the Products of Vietnam |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1064 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
On Passage: H R 4772 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Passage: S 3930 Military Commissions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1053 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Commitee on Rules. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1053 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Commitee on Rules. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1054 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2007; and providing for the consideration of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act and H.R. 4772, Private Property Rights Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1054 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2007; and providing for the consideration of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act and H.R. 4772, Private Property Rights Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6143 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Passage: H R 5825 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5825 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4954 Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE) Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1052 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1052 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1046 Waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1046 Waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1045 Providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
On Passage: H R 6166 Military Commissions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6166 Military Commissions Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1042 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1042 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 483 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Passage: H R 2679 Public Expression of Religion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
On Passage: S 403 Child Custody Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
Motion to resolve into secret session: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4772 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5092 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1039 Providing for the consideration of S. 403, Child Custody Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1038 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2679, Public Expression of Religion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5062 New Hampshire Wilderness Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5059 New Hampshire Wilderness Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2832 Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Passage: H R 6095 Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6095 Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On Passage: H R 6094 Community Protection Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 6094 Community Protection Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1018 Providing for the consideration of the bills (H.R. 4830)Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, (H.R. 6094) Community Protection Act of 2006 and (H.R. 6095) Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1018 Providing for the consideration of the bills (H.R. 4830)Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, (H.R. 6094) Community Protection Act of 2006 and (H.R. 6095) Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Passage: H R 4844 Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4844 Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1003 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 1000) providing for earmarking reform in the House of Representatives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1003 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 1000) providing for earmarking reform in the House of Representatives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Passage: H R 6061 Secure Fence Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6061 Secure Fence Act of 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1002 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6061, Secure Fence Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4893 Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 996 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 994, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Passage: H R 503 Horse Protection Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 503 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 503 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Passage: H R 5970 Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5970 Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Passage: H R 4 Pension Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 Pension Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 459 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 966 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5970, Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act and H.R. 4, Pension Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 958 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Passage: H R 4157 Better Health Information System Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4157 Better Health Information System Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 952 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4157) to amend the Social Security Act to encourage the dissemination, security, confidentiality, and usefulness of health information technology |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 952 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4157) to amend the Social Security Act to encourage the dissemination, security, confidentiality, and usefulness of health information technology |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Passage: H R 5682 United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5682 United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5682 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5682 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 947 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5682, United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5013 Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Passage: H R 5684 To implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 925 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 925 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 810 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5683 To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Passage: H R 2389 Pledge Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2389 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 920 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 920 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2754 Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
On Passage: H J RES 88 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3496 To amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining and improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and for other purposes |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 9 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 9 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 9 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Passage: H R 2990 Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2990 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 250 Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 906 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2990, Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 906 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2990, Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Passage: H R 4411 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4411 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4411 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 907 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4411, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 895 Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against, etc. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Passage: H R 4761 Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4761 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 440 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 897 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4761) to provide for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 896 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 896 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 70 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 67 to H R 5672 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 64 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 5672 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 5672 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 50 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5672 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 5672 Making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 5672 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5672 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5672 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 890 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Passage: H R 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Passage: H R 5638 Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5638 Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5638 Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Consideration: H R 5638 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 886 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 886 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 885 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5638, Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 885 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5638, Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5631 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5631 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5631 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5228 To require representatives of governments designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General lobbying contacts with legislative branch officials, and for other purposes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 861 Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 868 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5576 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5576 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 865 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 862 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 857 Waiving points of order against consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5522 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5522 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5522 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5522 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5522 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Passage: H R 5252 Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5252 Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5252 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5252 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 850 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5522 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 850 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5449 To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Passage: H R 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 193 Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 842 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 842 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5441 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5441 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 5441 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5441 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5441 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 836 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Passage: H R 5429 American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5429 American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 835 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in a program for the exploration, development and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5427 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 832 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 832 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 5384 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5384 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5384 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 830 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 830 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5385 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 821 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5385) making appropriations for the military quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 821 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5385) making appropriations for the military quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Passage: H R 5386 Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5386 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5386 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5386 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5386 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5386 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5386 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5386 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 376 Congressional Budget for FY 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 376 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 376 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 817 Providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 817 Providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 815 Waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Passage: H R 4200 Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On Passage: H R 5122 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5122 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5122 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5122 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 811 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 811 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5122 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 806 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 805 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4954 Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE) Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4954 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 789 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4954 to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 789 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4954 to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Passage: H R 4975 Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4975 Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 783 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for othe purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Passage: H R 5020 Intelligence Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5020 Intelligence Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5020 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 766 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, Congressional Budget for FY 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 766 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, Congressional Budget for FY 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Passage: H R 513 527 Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 762 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 755 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 755 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On Passage: H R 609 College Access and Opportunity Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 609 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 746 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 742 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 609, College Access and Opportunity Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 609 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 741 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2320 To make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Passage: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4939 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4939 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 725 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 725 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 354 Expressing the continued support of Congress for requiring an institution of higher education to provide military recruiters with access to the institution?s campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 713 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On Passage: H R 4167 National Uniformity for Food Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4167 National Uniformity for Food Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4167 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4167 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4167 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 710 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2271 USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 702 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 687 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 653 Relating to consideration of the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 (a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 653 Relating to consideration of the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 (a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1932 Budget Reconciliation, 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 669 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2863 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 668 |
Recommit conference report with instructions: H R 2863 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 666 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 639 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2863, Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 665 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1815 National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 663 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 623 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 661 |
On Passage: H R 4437 Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 660 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4437 Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 659 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4437 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 658 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4437 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 657 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4437 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4437 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4437 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 653 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4437 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 652 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 1932 Budget Reconciliation, 2006 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 648 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 612 Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 621 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1815 National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4437 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 639 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4437 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 636 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 610 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4437, Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 635 |
On Passage: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 634 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 633 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 602 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2830, Pension Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2863 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 627 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 626 |
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 624 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1047 To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of each of the Nation?s past President and their spouses, respectively, to improve circulation of the $1 coin, to create a new bullion coin, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 622 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 591 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 621 |
On Passage: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 619 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4297 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
On Passage: H R 4340 United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
Table appeal of the ruling of the chair: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 572 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 571 and for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 308 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 563 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 601 |
On Passage: H R 4241 Deficit Reduction Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 560 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent on the budget for fiscal year 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 559 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 3010, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropropriations for FY 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 592 |
On Passage: H R 1065 To establish the United States Boxing Commission to protect the general welfare of boxers and to ensure fairness in the sport of professional boxing |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 591 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 547 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Passage: H R 1751 Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1751 Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1751 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1606 Online Freedom of Speech Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3057 Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
On Passage: H R 420 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 420 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 420 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
On Passage: H R 1461 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1461 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1461 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 509 Providing for the consideration on H.R. 1461, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2744 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Passage: S 397 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Passage: H R 554 Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 554 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 554 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 554 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 554 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 494 Providing for the consideration on H.R. 554, Personal Responsibilty in Food Consumption Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Passage: H R 3893 Gasoline for America?s Security Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3893 Gasoline for America?s Security Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3893 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 481 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2360 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, FY 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Passage: H J RES 68 Making Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Passage: H R 3824 Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3824 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 470 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3402 Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3402 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 462 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3402) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2360 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, FY 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 438 Maudelle Shirek Post Office Building |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
On Passage: H R 2123 School Readiness Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2123 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2123 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 250 Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 250 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 451 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 437 To Establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 889 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 439 Providing for consideration of H. Res. 437, to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 439 Providing for consideration of H. Res. 437, to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 3132 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3132 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 426 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 426 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
H.R. 2985. Appropriations/Vote to Approve Conference Report for Legislative Branch Appropriations (Funding) Bill. In this vote, the House voted to adopt the conference report for H.R. 2985, the bill to fund the legislative branch of the U.S. government in fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A conference report is the reconciled version of a bill that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body. The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, without changes, before it can be sent to the President for his signature.) The bill would provide $3.804 billion for the legislative branch in 2006, including both houses of Congress, the Capitol Police, the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accounting Office. Taking the Progressive position, David Obey (D-WI) noted that the construction of a large Visitors' Center at the Capitol was now likely to run approximately $510 million beyond originally anticipated costs and was at least two years behind schedule. He condemned the overruns, stating "I think a tremendous amount of space has been wasted. And I think a tremendous amount of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted." Obey also condemned language which had been tacked onto the appropriations bill to provide for continuity in Congress in the event that a terrorist attack or other disaster killed a large number of members of Congress. He argued that this language provided for special elections to be held in 45 days, and that during that interim period, the President of the United States could virtually have complete control of the government. He expressed his preference for temporary appointments that could be made immediately, until special elections could be held. Republicans disagreed. Appropriations Committee Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) asserted that the bill was a "lean" one, and he explained that the increase from the previous year's appropriations-including the Visitors' Center-was the result of increased security measures in and around the Capitol. Republicans also favored the continuity-of-government language in the bill, arguing that it was "important" to have a procedure in place to ensure a functioning government in the event of a "calamity." (Ray LaHood (R-IL).) Progressives suffered a defeat when the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 305 to 122, with 110 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Republicans, and 34 Republicans choosing to vote "no" with Progressives. Thus, funds for the legislative branch of the U.S. government for FY06 were approved by the House, including increased expenditures for construction of the Capitol Visitors' Center, and a provision that could permit the President to have near complete control of the government for 45 days in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster that took the lives of 100 or more members of Congress. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
H.R. 5. Health Care/Vote to Pass Bill to Cap Damage Awards for Victims and Reduce Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases. In this vote, the House approved H.R. 5, a bill to cap damage awards for victims and reduce liability in medical malpractice cases. Republicans argued that large awards in medical malpractice cases had led malpractice insurance companies to raise their premiums for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers so high that many of these providers were being forced to give up their practices. Calling the state of affairs at the time a "medical liability crisis," Joe Wilson (R-SC) argued that the bill "safeguards patients' rights to care through common sense reforms. First, it promotes the speedy resolution of claims and fairly allocates damages. Second, the HEALTH Act accurately compensates patient injuries and maximizes patient recovery. Finally, this legislation places reasonable limits on punitive damages and ensures the payment of medical expenses and respects States' rights." Republicans also argued that "[A] Gallup poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed favor a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for noneconomic damages." (Lamar Smith (R-TX).) Progressives countered that that poll would have turned out differently if people had been informed that the legislation would make it more difficult for them to sue drug companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). (John Conyers (D-MI).) Conyers argued: "Rather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor." He added that a "General Accounting Office report that found there is no evidence that caps on damages have reduced losses or helped consumers. They found, instead, that the contention that premiums are rising because there is a surge in jury awards is a myth[.]" In addition, Democrats lamented the fact that this bill had come up for consideration on the House floor under a "closed rule," meaning that debate was strictly limited and no amendments were permitted. They were also upset that there had been no hearings or chance to amend the bill in committee. The House defeated Progressives when it passed this bill by a vote of 230 to 194, with 14 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" With Republicans. Thus, the House passed a bill to cap damages awards for victims and limit liability in medical malpractice cases. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Hospitals GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
H.R. 5. Health Care/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions (Amend or Kill) Bill to Cap Damage Awards for Victims and Reduce Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases. In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 5, a bill to cap damage awards for victims and reduce liability in medical malpractice cases. (A motion to recommit with instructions means to send a bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. It is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill amend substantively or to kill the pending legislation.) John Conyers (D-MI) offered the motion on behalf of Democrats, including Progressives. Republicans had argued that large awards in medical malpractice cases had led malpractice insurance companies to raise their premiums for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers so high that many of these providers were being forced to give up their practices. Republicans offered H.R. 5 as a solution to this problem. But Progressives condemned the bill, arguing that "[r]ather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor." (Conyers.) Conyers further argued that his motion would have gotten at the real problem-frivolous lawsuits-by "requir[ing] that both an attorney and health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted before a malpractice action can be brought, and imposes strict sanctions for attorneys who make any frivolous pleadings." (Conyers.) Republicans criticized the motion to recommit, alleging that it would not have adequately protected doctors from frivolous suits. Instead, they hailed the bill, arguing that it "safeguards patients' rights to care through commonsense reforms. First, it promotes the speedy resolution of claims and fairly allocates damages. Second, the HEALTH Act accurately compensates patient injuries and maximizes patient recovery. Finally, this legislation places reasonable limits on punitive damages and ensures the payment of medical expenses and respects States' rights." Joe Wilson (R-SC).) In a defeat for Progressives, the House rejected this motion by a nearly party-line vote of 193 to 234. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on the bill to limit liability and cap damage awards in medical malpractice. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Hospitals GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On Passage: H R 3045 Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 386 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 385 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5, 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 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 385 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5, 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 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Passage: H R 3283 United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3283 United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 387 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3283) United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 387 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3283) United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
On Passage: H R 525 To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their emplopyees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 525 To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their emplopyees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 525 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3283 United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3070 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Passage: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as Modified: Amendment 14 to H R 3199 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3199 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3199 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3199 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3199 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 369 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 369 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On Passage: H R 2601 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2601 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2601 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2601 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2601 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2601 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2601 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2601 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2601 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 365 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2601, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 365 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2601, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3100 East Asia Security Act of 2005 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On Passage: H R 742 Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act of 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Passage: H R 741 Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Passage: H R 740 Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Passage: H R 739 Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 352 Providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 351 Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 351 Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 345 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 3058 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 3058 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 3058 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3058 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3057 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3057 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3057 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 342 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3058) Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, DC Appropriations, FY 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 341 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3057) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and related programs Appropriations, FY 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Passage: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 3010 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3010 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 337 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3010, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 2985 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2985 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2985 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 334 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 334 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On Passage: H J RES 10 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H J RES 10 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H J RES 10 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 10 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2475 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 331 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2475, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2863 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2863 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2863 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2863 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Passage: H R 2745 Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2745 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2745 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2745 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 324 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 315 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2863), Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 2006 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2862 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 2862 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2862 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2862 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2862 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2862 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2862 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2862 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 314 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2862), Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations, FY 06 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
H. Res. 310. Ethics/Procedural Motion to Table (Kill) Resolution Directing House Ethics Committee to Appoint a "Non-partisan Professional Staff." In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Roy Blunt (R-MO) to table (kill) H. Res. 310. H.R. 310 was a resolution sponsored by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) directing the House Ethics Committee to appoint a "non-partisan professional staff." Pelosi's resolution alleged that the Republican Chair of the Committee had hired and fired staff in a partisan manner. The resolution stated that these actions violated not only established precedent, but also House rules that mandate that hiring and firing of Committee staff be done in a bipartisan manner. The resolution also declared that "the Committee's resulting inability to carry out its duties has subjected the House to public ridicule and produced contempt for the ethics process, thus bringing discredit to the House." This early June resolution followed a bitter months-long disagreement between House Democrats and Republicans regarding House ethics rules for the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress." The House adopts new rules to govern its proceedings at the beginning of each Congress.) In this dispute, Democrats charged that the Republicans had drafted rules that would permit the Committee simply to allow ethics charges-especially those made against Republicans-to fade away without taking any action on them at all. This resolution continued the acid debate on ethics in the 109th Congress. No debate was held on the floor of the House regarding this resolution. The House defeated Progressives on this vote when it tabled (killed) it by a straight party-line vote of 219 to 199. Thus, the highly charged disagreement between Democrats and Republicans with regard to the House Ethics Committee continued. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Ensure that U.S. Government is Reimbursed by Private Citizens for Cost of Food Stamps Provided to Legal Aliens. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered to H.R. 2744 by Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to ensure that the U.S. government is reimbursed by private citizens when food stamps are provided to legal aliens. Garrett explained that an affidavit of support must be filled out by a U.S. sponsor when an alien legally enters the U.S. The affidavit attests that a U.S. private citizen intends to sponsor the alien for a period of 10 years or until the alien becomes a citizen, whichever comes first, so that the alien does "not become a public charge." Thus, Garrett argued on behalf of many Republicans, the U.S. government should not bear the cost of providing food stamps to aliens who have a commitment of sponsorship from private citizens. In the event food stamps are obtained by aliens, Garrett declared that the U.S. government should seek reimbursement from the aliens' private sponsors. He pointed out that this responsibility is already laid out in current law, and thus his amendment was merely reiterating a policy which was already law. Taking the Progressive position, Henry Bonilla (R-TX) asserted that the amendment was "unnecessary and duplicative and there is no indication that USDA is doing anything to contradict statutory provisions right now related to collection from sponsors of food stamp benefits paid to sponsored aliens." Progressives won this vote when the House defeated this amendment by a vote of 169 to 258, with 66 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "no" with Progressives, and 7 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes." AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2744 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit the Expenditure of Funds to Pay Government Inspectors Who Examine Horses to Be Slaughtered for Human Consumption. In this vote, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 2744 offered by John Sweeney (R-NY) to prohibit the use of funds to pay government inspectors who examine horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Sweeney described his amendment as a supplement to one passed by the House a few weeks earlier. That amendment banned the slaughter of wild horses (which is done for human consumption in foreign markets). He stated that this amendment to the FY06 agriculture appropriations bill would "would end the use of taxpayer dollars to enable and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in opposition to the vast opinion and support of United States citizens[.]" Sweeney described horse-slaughter as inhumane. He further argued that "Americans do not profit from slaughtering horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that purpose. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment simply says that the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the salaries and the work of USDA inspectors ought to stop, and those resources ought to be committed to making sure the food supply and the food chain here in this country are fully protected." Republicans who opposed the amendment countered that "[t]his amendment will shut down an industry without having a hearing, or any due process. The amendment creates a crisis for animal health issues. It prohibits USDA from inspecting horses that may have West Nile virus, or vesicular stomatitis, both of which can affect other animals and humans if those horses are destined for slaughter." (Henry Bonilla (R-TX).) They also argued that though Sweeney's primary motivation was the inhumane nature of the slaughter, Sweeney's amendment would not do anything to address that concern. Finally, they noted that the wild horse population in the U.S. needed to be managed, and that the moral distinction between horses and other animals slaughtered for food was not necessarily a clear one. Progressives won this vote when the House passed this amendment 269 to 158, with 104 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Progressives and 33 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no." Thus, language prohibiting the use of funds to pay government inspectors who examine horses to be slaughtered for human consumption was added to the agriculture appropriations bill. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit Scientists with Conflicts of Interest from Serving on Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panels. In this vote, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 2744 offered by Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) to prohibit scientists from serving on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels if they have conflicts of interest with regard to the makers of the objects they were charged with evaluating. H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Noting that "[t]he amendment does not change current law; it simply makes sure that the FDA is adhering to current law[,]" Hinchey argued that there ought to be "no question as to whether the committee members are looking out for the public health." He stated that a few recent incidents had cast doubt on the impartiality of some panel members. Most Republicans opposed the amendment, arguing that due to the structure of the medical industry, the amendment would eliminate most top doctors from offering their expertise as members of these panels. Much medical research is funded by drug or related companies, they maintained, so that most accomplished doctors have worked on projects funded by such companies at some point in their careers. Progressives won this vote when the House passed this amendment 218 to 210, with 32 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Progressives and 12 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans. Thus, language prohibiting scientists from serving on advisory FDA panels if they have a conflict of interest was included in the FY06 agriculture appropriations bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment Not to Delay Implementation of Rule Requiring that Meat Products Be Labeled with Their Country-of-Origin. In this vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Denny Rehberg (R-MT) to strip from H.R. 2744 language that would delay for a year the implementation of a rule requiring that meat products be labeled with their country-of-origin. H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Rehberg argued that the public has increasing interest in knowing where its meat comes from, particularly in light of recent cases of "mad-cow disease." Progressives also asserted that labeling would encourage brand-loyalty for U.S. meat products. The majority of Republicans and some Democrats disagreed, stating that requiring the labeling would force the price of retail beef to climb, thereby hurting the beef industry. "Good, salt-of-the-earth people in agriculture know that this would impose up to $1 billion in additional costs to their already overworked people and to their budgets, which are already being taxed." (Henry Bonilla (R-TX).) Bonilla also noted: "Nothing could be more anti free enterprise than to mandate labeling on a product." Republicans also contended that this provision imposed a heavy burden of liability on retailers. Moreover, they argued, a delay was needed to ensure that the regulations were properly implemented. The House defeated Progressives on this amendment by a vote of 187 to 240, with 52 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans, and 41 Republicans choosing to vote "yes" with Progressives. Thus, the language delaying the implementation of a rule requiring that meat products be labeled with their country of origin remained in the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Increase Funding for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to H.R. 2744. Weiner's amendment increased funding for the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) by approximately $19 million for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Weiner argued that more money was needed to combat invasive pests such as the Asian long-horned beetle, which was devastating trees in many areas of the U.S. Weiner was joined on the House floor by other Democrats from the Northeast who spoke of their districts' experiences with similar pest problems. Republicans who opposed the bill countered that adding more money to APHIS would not remove the need to have available emergency funds to battle unanticipated pests each year. Moreover, they objected to the source of the additional funds proposed by Weiner's amendment: Department of Agriculture computer upgrades. Progressives won on this vote when the amendment passed 226 to 201, with 40 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Democrats and 13 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans. Thus, a sum of $19 million was added to the bill to help combat invasive pest problems. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Procedural Vote on Motion to Instruct Conferees on Bill Reauthorizing the Nation's Surface Transportation Funding Laws. In this vote, the House defeated a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3, a bill reauthorizing the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. (When the House and Senate pass two different versions of the same bill, they generally hold a conference to resolve the discrepancies between the two. Each body appoints a representative number of its members to participate in the conference. A motion to instruct the conferees is an effort by a representative to request that their conferees on a bill take a specific action with regard to the legislation that is the object of the conference. Often the action is to include or omit a particular provision. The instruction is not binding.) James Oberstar (D-MN) brought this motion to instruct the conferees to do two things: to insist on the level of funding for "highway, transit, and highway and motor carrier safety programs" at least equal to the amount the House provided in its version of the bill; and to ensure that each state would receive back at least 92 percent of the amount of money it contributed to these funds. Making the Progressive argument that emphasized fairness amongst the states, Oberstar insisted that a level of 92 percent return on funds was necessary in order to achieve "equity" between "donor" states who contribute much money to the funds and "donee" states, who receive more than they are able to contribute. Oberstar added that Congress ought to devote more resources to surface transportation, as increases in congestion and traffic were resulting in significant losses in time and money for Americans. Republicans countered that while they agreed that congestion was a costly problem, Oberstar's motion would unrealistically constrain the conferees because achieving the 92-percent return goal for every state would require more total money to be spent than might be available. They added that the motion was premature as the House had not yet even appointed conferees. The House defeated Progressives and rejected the motion to instruct conferees by a virtually party-line vote of 189 to 223. Thus, work on the surface transportation bill continued without a recommendation to conferees to make sure that each state received back at least 92 percent of the funds it contributed for highway, transit and related safety programs. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
H.R. 2528. Appropriations/Veterans/Vote on Amendment to Move Funds Set Aside for New Military Base Closures to Accounts to Complete Cleanup on Bases Already Closed. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to H.R. 2528. Blumenauer's amendment would have moved funds set aside for new military base closures to accounts to be used to complete cleanup on military bases that had already been closed. H.R. 2528 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) military and veterans' health care and for military construction and base closure for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Blumenauer argued that communities where military bases have been closed were waiting needlessly and unacceptably long periods of time for the military to cleanup the areas so that they would be ready for redevelopment. Blumenauer noted that inadequate cleanup (which, as others pointed out, included toxic substances and/or unusual and dangerous items like unexploded ordnances) was "one of the reasons that we find such apprehension regarding the BRAC [Base Realignment and Closing] process, although there is the promise of redevelopment." Republicans disagreed that more funds were needed for the cleanup process, arguing that "[t]his amendment is probably not necessary. DOD has indicated that by the year 2008 it will have either completed the cleanup or put into place all the remedial systems it needs for cleanup at all but two installations. Once in place, the cleanup will take time, and more funds will not necessarily speed up the process." Jim Walsh (R-NY). The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by a vote of 171 to 254, with 40 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no," and 13 Republicans choosing to vote "yes" with the Progressives. Thus, no additional funds were redirected to cleanup from earlier military base closures. ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
H.R. 2528. Appropriations/Veterans/Vote on Amendment to Increase Funding for Veterans' Programs. In this vote, the House narrowly defeated an amendment offered by Charlie Melancon (D-LA) to H.R. 2528. Melancon's amendment would have increased by $53 million funding for various veterans' health care and other benefits programs while cutting $169 million from the commission charged with closing military bases. H.R. 2528 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) military and veterans' health care and for military construction and base closure for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the funds for these veterans' programs were critically needed. Republicans opposed the proposed cut to the Base Alignment and Closing commission (BRAC), stating that it would "slow down the cleanup and disposal of closed bases for this round, and also the realignment of bases, and will therefore negatively impact the economies of those communities by stalling the reuse and development of that land." Jim Walsh (R-NY). They also contended that the amendment would not have much of an impact on veterans' health care. The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by just one vote. The tally was 213 to 214, with a 19 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with Democrats. Thus, funds for certain veterans' programs were not increased beyond what was contained in the bill, and funds for base closures were not cut. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
H. Res. 298. Appropriations/Veterans/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Making Appropriations (Funding) for Military and Veterans' Health Care and for Military Construction and Base Closure. In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 2528, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for military and veterans' health care and for military construction and base closure for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Progressives objected to the rule in part because the rule would not permit them to offer on the floor of the House during debate an amendment that they deemed important. That amendment would have proposed a tax increase for individuals making more than $1 million per year in order to pay for increased health care benefits for veterans. For the most part, however, representatives focused their debate on the substance of the bill, which would appropriate $121.8 billion to cover "quality of life" costs for members of the military and veterans and to cover costs of military construction and base realignment and closures. Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the bill provided insufficient funds to meet the needs of veterans, especially those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans, however, noted that for the first time, Congress was providing "a dedicated pool of resources" for veterans' health programs. (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) suggested that Democrats supporting additional increases for veterans' health care were disingenuous, stating, "some of the Members on the other side come from the liberal left. They do not support the military. They vote against defense bills. . . . Since we [the Republicans] took the majority over the last few years, we have increased health care over 60 percent. . . ." Cunningham went on to assert that members of the Reserve and Guard have health insurance from other sources: "Another thing last night where they [Democrats] said, well, the Republicans did not vote to take care of our National Guard, they sign a contract, Mr. Speaker. When one goes into the National Guard or Reserve, they are a citizen soldier. They sign up and they are working in a business and they get your health care through the business or they sign up with private insurance. . . . I am military retired, and I have health care, and so do our veterans in an increasing manner." The House defeated Progressives and ordered the previous question on a straight party-line vote of 223 to 194. Thus, the House proceeded to pass the rule and enter into substantive debate about the military and veterans' health care bill, though Democrats were not permitted to offer their amendment to tax the wealthy on behalf of veterans. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Passage of Bill to Authorize Military Activities of the Defense Department. In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1815, a $441.6 billion bill to authorize military activities of the Defense Department for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Among other provisions, the bill would provide $49.1 billion in additional spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and funds to develop certain weapons, including the Army's Future Combat System and the Navy's DD(X) destroyer. It also would prohibit the Defense Department from obtaining anything from foreign companies which receive subsidies from their own governments. Republicans hailed the bill, stating that it "is a true example of bipartisan cooperation, providing the men and women of the armed services with the best equipment, best training, and a benefit package that is worthy of their service and their sacrifice." (Duncan Hunter (R-CA).) They argued that it "contains significant improvements in areas of military personnel, acquisition reform, responsible defense procurement strategies, and addresses a need for continuity in funding for our ongoing efforts in the global war on terror." (Hunter.) Most Progressives disagreed. Even some supporters of the bill joined Progressives in expressing concern that money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to be authorized and appropriated outside of the ordinary budgeting process. They indicated that these expenses were foreseeable and thus ought to be determined along with all of the other expenses of the United States government. Progressives expressed other concerns as well. Making a Progressive argument, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) appealed to the House to think about peace and called the bill a "half-trillion [dollar] authorization for more fraud, waste, abuse and war." Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) expressed concern that too much money would be spent on weapons systems that either didn't work or didn't adequately "address the new threats we face." He also stated that with respect to the bill, "[a] glaring omission is the lack of any meaningful provisions dealing with torture and prison abuse by our country." The House defeated Progressives and voted 390 to 39 to support the Defense Authorization Bill, with 164 Democrats joining Republicans in support of the bill. Thus, the House sent to the Senate a bill authorizing $441.6 billion in defense spending for FY06. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
H.R. 1815. Defense/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill to Authorize Military Activities of the Defense Department. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Defense Department for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 1815. (A motion to recommit with instructions means to send the bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) The motion to recommit was offered by Gene Taylor (D-MS). Taylor's motion would have permitted military reservists to have access to the same health insurance, TRICARE, provided to U.S. military active-duty members. The motion sought to take the funds needed to cover its costs from funds allocated to close military bases. Democrats, including Progressives, argued that reservists were being treated unfairly because despite the fact that they ran the same risk of injury and death as active military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them had no health coverage at all. Republicans countered that reservists were eligible for coverage under TRICARE for 90 days prior to mobilization and 180 days following mobilization. They added that giving reservists the same health coverage as regular military troops would encourage private employers to drop the coverage they provide for their employees who are reservists. Moreover, they insisted that the funds that would be needed to provide this coverage were instead needed to provide equipment for the military. The House defeated Progressives and struck down this motion by a virtually straight party-line vote of 211 to 218. Thus, no language was added to the bill to provide reservists with the same health care coverage as regular military troops. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Amendment to Express Sense of Congress that the President Ought to Develop a Plan to Withdraw U.S. Troops from Iraq. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered to H.R. 1815 by Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) to express the sense of the Congress that the President ought to develop a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and that he ought to submit that plan to the appropriate congressional committees. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Many Democrats, including Progressives, argued that in the two years since the war in Iraq began, too many people had been killed or wounded and too much money had been spent, and that a plan for U.S. withdrawal was long overdue. "In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of American wounded, according to the Pentagon, is greater than 12,000, and that does not even count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, afflicting tens of thousands of our soldiers. And, of course, with more than $200 billion on the line, do the Members not think that the American people deserve to know what the President plans to do in Iraq?" (Woolsey.) Woolsey added that "[w]e can truly support our troops by bringing them home." Opponents of the amendment, who included Republicans and numerous Democrats, stated that passage of the amendment would signal to terrorist leaders that "the United States does not have the stomach to continue to oppose them" and that "the resolve of the American people is fading away." (Duncan Hunter (R-CA).) They insisted that the amendment would endanger U.S. national security and the troops abroad. The House overwhelmingly defeated this amendment by a vote of 128 to 300, with 79 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against it. Thus, Congress did not express a desire for the President to submit a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
H.R. 1815. Defense/Gay Rights/Vote on Amendment to Express Congress's Continued Support for Solomon Amendment (Law that Permits Withholding of Federal Funding from Universities Which, Due to the Military's Policy of Discriminating Against Gays and Lesbians, Do Not Permit Military Recruitment on Their Campuses). In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed an amendment to H.R. 1815 offered by Cliff Stearns (R-FL) to express Congress's continued support for a law known as the Solomon Amendment. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The Solomon Amendment permitted the withholding of federal funds from universities who refused to allow the U.S. military to recruit on their campuses. Some universities attempted to bar the military from recruiting on campus on the grounds that the military's policy concerning gays and lesbians in the service violated the universities' nondiscrimination policies. The Solomon Amendment was passed to override these universities' actions. In addition to expressing Congress's continued support for the Solomon Amendment, Stearns's amendment required the Secretary of Defense to produce a report on universities which would not permit military recruiting on their campuses. Republicans, along with many Democrats, supported this resolution affirming the Solomon Amendment asserted that it is critical that the military be able to recruit broadly and have access to all of the brightest, most capable young people to defend the country, particularly during wartime. They maintained that if a university is not willing to allow the military access to help defend the country, then that university should be willing to forego federal funding. Progressives did not offer any argument on the House floor to oppose the amendment. Progressives lost on this vote when the House passed this amendment 336 to 92, with 109 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Republicans. Thus, the House attached to H.R. 1815 an expression of Congress's continued support for a policy compelling universities to allow access to military recruiters. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
H.R. 1815. Abortion/Defense/Vote on Amendment to Lift Restrictions on Termination of Pregnancies for U.S. Servicewomen. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 1815 offered by Susan Davis (D-CA) to lift the existing restrictions on termination of pregnancies for U.S. servicewomen. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Existing law forbade servicewomen from receiving services to terminate pregnancies in U.S. military health care facilities. Taking the Progressive position, Davis noted that "Servicewomen do not receive the protection of the Constitution they defend." She explained that the current rule forced servicewomen "to return home for medical services after obtaining permission from their commanding officer and finding space on military transport. The other option for them is venturing out to a hospital in a foreign country if, in fact, they are able to do that." Davis stated that her amendment would "permit[] servicewomen to walk into a U.S. military hospital, a familiar and trusted place, to use their own private funds for safe and legal pregnancy termination services." Republicans opposed the amendment, arguing that "[a]llowing self-funded abortions would simply turn our military hospitals overseas into abortion clinics." (Jim Ryun (R-KS).) In addition, they argued that as U.S. taxpayer dollars funded the military health facilities where abortions would be performed, it would be wrong to require taxpayers to support pregnancy terminations for servicewomen. Ryun also noted that "overseas military hospitals already offer self-funded abortions when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." Progressives lost on this vote when the amendment failed 194 to 233, with 30 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no," while 22 Republicans chose to vote "yes" with the Progressives. Thus, the restrictions forbidding servicewomen from receiving services to terminate pregnancies in U.S. military health care facilities remained in place. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Amendment to Authorize Use of U.S. Armed Forces to Help Secure U.S. Borders. In this vote, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 1815 offered by Virgil Goode (R-VA) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to use the U.S. armed forces to help secure U.S. borders. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Goode noted that his amendment would simply provide the Secretary of Defense with the discretion to use troops in order to assist the U.S. border patrol "in combating illegal drugs, combating illegal immigration or to reduce the threat of terrorism." Republicans insisted that border security was a top priority, and that Goode's amendment would provide border patrol with the resources it needed to ensure the security of U.S. borders. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the amendment. They noted that border patrol needed more law enforcement resources, not the military, in order to fill in the gaps in security. They also observed that "[o]ur servicemen and -women are simply spread too thin [already]." (Solomon Ortiz (D-TX).) The House defeated the Progressive position when it passed this amendment by a vote of 245 to 184, with 31 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes," and 13 Republicans choosing to vote "no" with the Progressives. Thus, language was added to the bill that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to employ the military to help secure U.S. borders. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
H. Res. 293. Defense/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Authorizing Department of Defense Military Activities. In this vote, the House approved the governing rule for H.R. 1815, a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was a follow-up to Roll Call vote number 212. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the rule, asserting that Republicans would not permit Democrats to offer many amendments that were important to them. In particular, Ike Skelton (D-MO) had wanted to offer an amendment to strike from the bill language forbidding women from participating in many combat-support military activities. In addition, Doris Matsui (D-CA) had wanted to offer an amendment permitting military reservists to have access to the same health insurance provided to U.S. military active-duty members. Republicans countered that the substance of the bill-funding the military activities of the United States-was absolutely critical, and that some of the Democrats concerns would be addressed in a "manager's amendment" to be offered during consideration of the bill. (A manager's amendment means an amendment that would make a number of changes to the legislation that are not necessarily related to each other. A manager's amendment is typically the result of work from many representatives, is generally offered by the lead sponsor of the bill (who "manages" the debate on the House floor), and almost always has enough support to pass.) Both Democrats and Republicans also offered their opinions on the substance of the bill, highlighting what they viewed as its various merits and weak points, foreshadowing the consideration of numerous amendments. The House defeated the Progressive position when it adopted the rule by a straight party-line vote of 225 to 198. Thus, the House proceeded to substantive consideration of the bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for FY06. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
H. Res. 293. Defense/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Authorize Department of Defense Military Activities. In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 1815, a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the rule, protesting that Republicans would not permit Democrats to offer many amendments that were important to them. In particular, Ike Skelton (D-MO) had wanted to offer an amendment to strike from the bill language forbidding women from participating in many combat-support military activities. In addition, Doris Matsui (D-CA) had wanted to offer an amendment permitting military reservists to have access to the same health insurance provided to U.S. military active-duty members. Republicans countered that the substance of the bill-funding the military activities of the United States-was absolutely critical, and that some of the Democrats concerns would be addressed in a "manager's amendment" to be offered during consideration of the bill. (A manager's amendment means an amendment that would make a number of changes to the legislation that are not necessarily related to each other. A manager's amendment is typically the result of work from many representatives, is generally offered by the lead sponsor of the bill (who "manages" the debate on the House floor), and almost always has enough support to pass.) Both Democrats and Republicans also offered their opinions on the substance of the bill, highlighting what they viewed as its various merits and weak points, foreshadowing the consideration of numerous amendments. The House defeated the Progressive position when it ordered the previous question on the rule by a straight party-line vote of 225 to 200. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on passage of the rule and a substantive debate on the bill. HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
H.R. 2419. Appropriations/Energy/Procedural Vote on Motion To Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill to Make Appropriations (Fund) for Energy and Water Development. H.R. 2419 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 2419. (A motion to recommit with instructions means to send the bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) The motion to recommit was offered by Bob Etheridge (D-NC), and would have provided funds to analyze "imported crude oil and its impact on petroleum sales" and "for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a conference with foreign oil producers of foreign oil-producing nations." (Etheridge.) Making the Progressive argument, Etheridge argued that Americans across the country were suffering from recent rises in the price of gasoline, and that these measures would "offer a proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration to move and take action and take action quickly." Republicans offered no argument on the House floor to support their opposition to the motion. The motion and the Progressive position were defeated by a vote of 167 to 261, with 35 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no.". Thus, these funds were not allocated for both the analysis of and a conference focusing on the cost of petroleum imports, and the House went on to pass the FY06 Appropriations bill for energy and water development. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
H.R. 2419. Appropriations/Energy/Vote on Amendment to Cease Delivering Oil to U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Bart Stupak (D-MI) to cease delivering oil to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Stupak sought to amend H.R. 2419, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the gasoline that would ordinarily be put into the Reserve instead ought to be sold to consumers to help contain the rising cost of gasoline. Stupak noted: "there is no reason to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some relief at the pump to our consumers." He also pointed out that "suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity." Republicans disagreed, noting that this amendment would have tied the President's hands following an emergency that necessitated use of the Reserve's petroleum, because a law forbidding delivery of petroleum to the Reserve would prevent the President from ordering that the Reserve be refilled. The House defeated Progressives on this amendment by a vote of 174 to 253, with 38 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, deliveries of gasoline could still be made to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, despite the rise in gas prices. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
H.R. 2419. Appropriations/Energy/Vote on Amendment to Transfer $15.5 Million in Spending from Nuclear Waste Disposal to Energy Efficiency. In this vote, the House rejected an amendment to H.R. 2419 offered by Edward Markey (D-MA) to transfer $15.5 million in spending from nuclear waste reprocessing and disposal to energy efficiency programs. H.R. 2419 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Progressives argued that there were several reasons to de-emphasize nuclear reprocessing. First, they stated that not engaging in reprocessing would give the U.S. "the high moral ground as we look at the North Koreans and Iranians to tell them not to do it." (Markey.) Second, they noted that reprocessing was not economical. Third, Progressives argued that reprocessing was unsafe because of the potential of leaks of radioactive material. Fourth, they stated that energy conservation would simply be a better use of the $15.5 million in question because there it would help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Republicans disagreed, stating that the funds could potentially cure the existing problem of nuclear waste disposal, which negatively affected several communities. They asserted that modern technology minimized the risks posed by reprocessing. The House defeated Progressives on this amendment by a vote of 110 to 312, with 89 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the amendment. Thus, the $15.5 million remained allocated for U.S. nuclear waste reprocessing, despite the fact that the U.S. government was simultaneously calling on the North Korean and Iranian governments not to reprocess nuclear waste. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Nuclear Energy Industry ENVIRONMENT— Nuclear Energy ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Nuclear Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
H.R. 810. Stem-Cell Research/Vote on Bill to Expand Embryonic Stem-Cell Research. In this vote, the House passed a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE) to expand embryonic stem-cell research. The bill would permit federal funds to be used to support research on embryos left over from fertility treatments in cases where the embryos would otherwise be discarded. Embryonic stem-cell research faced steadfast opposition from the Bush White House and from the more conservative wing of the Republican party, which believed that such research destroys human beings. H.R. 810 in fact faced a veto-threat from the President. Many Democrats, including Progressives, as well as more moderate Republicans disagreed, noting, "What could be more life-affirming than using what would otherwise be discarded to save, extend and improve lives?" (James Langevin (D-RI).) The House considered this bill in conjunction with a bill to expand support for research on stem-cells taken from umbilical cord blood, which passed almost unanimously. Representatives who supported both bills readily agreed that research based on umbilical cord blood was worth pursuing, but noted the possibility that embryonic stem-cells might lead to medical breakthroughs that might not arise from cord-blood research. Progressives won on this issue when the House passed the embryonic stem-cell research bill by a vote of 238 to 194, with 50 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes," and 14 Democrats choosing to vote "no" with the majority of Republicans. Thus, the bill to expand embryonic stem-cell research was sent to the Senate, despite the strong threat of a veto from the President. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes HEALTH CARE— Medical Research Funding HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
H. Res. 291. Appropriations/Energy/Procedural Vote on Bill Making Appropriations (Funding) for Energy and Water Development for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 2419, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, objected to the fact that the Rules Committee (the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of bills; it is weighted in favor of the majority party-currently the Republicans-and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) had forbidden Democrats from offering an amendment that would have provided $250 million "to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new energy technologies." (Allyson Schwartz (D-PA).). Republicans on the Rules Committee had denied Schwartz from offering this amendment on the grounds that it violated House rules because it was not "germane," meaning relevant to the bill. (All amendments in the House must be germane, unless a special waiver is granted.) Republicans countered that they had brought the energy appropriations bill to the floor under an "open rule," meaning that any amendment that did not violate the rules of the House would be in order and thus could be considered. Progressives lost on this issue when the House ordered the previous question on the rule by a virtually party-line vote of 219 to 190. Thus, the House proceeded to adopt the rule and move to substantive consideration of the energy appropriations bill, despite Democrats' objections. ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Passage of Bill Making Appropriations for (Funding) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Other Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2361, a bill making appropriations for (funding) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The bill would appropriate $26.2 billion for those agencies for FY06. Members did not conduct a debate on the House floor specifically regarding final passage of this legislation, but the vote followed a long day of discussion and votes on procedural matters and substantive amendments. In general, Democrats, including Progressives, criticized what they stated was the bill's failure to fund adequately the EPA, as well as the bill's proposed cuts in many programs Democrats deemed vital to the health and well-being of the country and its citizens. Democrats also argued that many of these cuts were consequences of the President's tax cuts, which had left the government without enough money to fund many of these important federal programs, like those run through the EPA. Republicans countered that the bill prioritized the limited resources available in order to preserve the environment, fund Indian health programs, preserve historical landmarks and public resources like national parks and help the Interior Department fight wildfires. The House passed the Interior Appropriations bill by a vote of 329 to 89, with 115 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against Progressives and in favor of the bill. Thus, the House established what it believed ought to be the funding for the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for fiscal year 2006, and sent that bill on to the Senate. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions Bill Making Appropriations (Funding) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Other Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by David Obey (D-WI) to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 2361. (A motion to recommit is a motion to send a bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. Often, it is a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Obey's motion would have required the Appropriations Committee to provide "an additional $242 million to the Clean Water Revolving Fund and $110 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants (for water and sewage treatment), returning both programs to last year's level." (Obey.) Neither Democrats nor Republicans offered substantive arguments on the floor of the House at the time this motion was considered. However, in earlier consideration of an amendment that would have increased funding to the Clean Water Revolving Fund by taking money from State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Obey had stated that "the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the crucial program for helping local communities with sewage treatment plants infrastructure. It is a keystone of the Clean Water Act; and yet this committee is recommending with the cut in the bill this year that we effectively cut this program by 40 percent over 2 years. It was already cut 19 percent last year. I think that is a terrible, terrible decision to make." Republicans in the debate on the earlier amendment (see Roll Call number 194) had argued simply that money should not be taken from State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Progressives were defeated when the motion to recommit was voted down 191 to 228. Thus, neither the Clean Water Revolving Fund nor the State and Tribal Assistance grants received additional increases beyond that already included in the language of the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit Use of Funds in Bill for the Sale or Slaughter of Wild Horses and Burros. In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Nick Rahall (D-WV) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in H.R. 2361 for the sale or slaughter of wild, free-roaming horses and burros. H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Rahall noted that a little-noticed provision in a massive appropriations bill the previous year had "trashed 33 years of national policy and lifted the prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses." He argued that these animals were an important part of America's national heritage, and expressed outrage that even though the U.S. prohibits the domestic sale of horsemeat for human consumption, exportation of the very same thing was ongoing. Most Republicans felt differently, countering that the present law permitted the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell "older or unadoptable" animals from short-term holding facilities, thus saving U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. (Charles Taylor (R-NC).) They also argued that the BLM had already begun to implement new rules to ensure that horsemeat was not exported for human consumption, and that current law permitted the necessary sales of horses from overpopulated herds to individuals and farms where the horses could live out their lives. Further, they maintained that the BLM had to be able to manage this wildlife. The House passed this amendment by a vote of 249 to 159, with 78 Republicans joining Democrats, including Progressives, to vote "yes," while 19 Democrats crossed party lines to vote "no" with the Republicans. Thus, a reinstatement of a former prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses was included in the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Arts/Vote on Amendment to Reduce Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and to Increase Funding for the U.S. Forest Service. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Bob Beauprez (R-CO) to H.R. 2361 that would have reduced by $30 million funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and increased by $27.5 million funding for the U.S. Forest Service. H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Beauprez argued that the Forest Service needed the additional funds "for thinning projects to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires." He proposed to take the funds from the NEA because "a very small percentage of artistic funds comes from the Federal Government[,]" and "it should be a greater priority of Congress to ensure the safety of our western communities, prevent forest fires, and save lives rather than spend taxpayer dollars for artistic endeavors, enjoyable as they may be." Taking the Progressive position, Norman Dicks (D-WA) argued that the real intent of Beauprez's amendment was to reduce funding for the NEA, which had been attacked by Republicans repeatedly for more than a decade due to the funding of what some in Congress deemed "controversial" art. Progressives won on this issue when the House overwhelmingly defeated this amendment by a vote of 122 to 298, with 108 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "no" with Democrats. Thus, the NEA's funding in the bill was kept intact, as was funding for the U.S. Forest Service. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Shift $100 Million to Clean Water Fund. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered to H.R. 2361 by David Obey (D-WI) to shift $100 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The funds would have been taken from water and sewage-treatment grants for Indian tribes and states. H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Obey was trying to restore part of the cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund made by the Appropriations Committee when they considered this bill. Making the Progressive argument, Obey stated that "the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the crucial program for helping local communities with sewage treatment plants infrastructure. It is a keystone of the Clean Water Act; and yet this committee is recommending with the cut in the bill this year that we effectively cut this program by 40 percent over 2 years. It was already cut 19 percent last year. I think that is a terrible, terrible decision to make." He argued that the area from which he would take the $100 million to pay for his amendment was a less effective use of water and sewage-treatment funds than the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Republicans disagreed, noting that the fund from which Obey sought to pay for his amendment was too valuable: "These projects are often the only recourse for rural communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to qualify for a loan under the Clean Water or Drinking Water revolving funds." (Charles Taylor (R-NC).) Progressives lost in this vote when the House defeated the amendment 186 to 235, with 17 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans. Thus, the cuts made by the Appropriations Committee to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund were left in place. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Permit Drilling for Natural Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 2361 offered by John Peterson (R-PA) to permit drilling for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS; an area off of United States shores). H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Peterson sought to lift an approximately 20-year-old moratorium on drilling for natural gas in the OCS, arguing that the price of natural gas had soared and additional sources for the fuel were necessary to prevent an economic recession in the U.S. He stated that the drilling could occur without damaging the environment. Opponents of the bill disagreed with Peterson's assessment of the environmental impact of natural gas-drilling. Taking the Progressive position, Lois Capps (D-CA) stated, "[t]his amendment guts the long-standing bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas, areas including California, Florida, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Northwest, New England, and the entire Atlantic coast. It is completely unnecessary. Proponents say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to the high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is that the moratoria are not where the resources are." Progressives won this vote when the House defeated this amendment 157 to 262, with 93 Republicans joining Democrats to vote no, and 27 Democrats joining Republicans to vote against the amendment. Thus, the moratorium on drilling for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States remained in place. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
H. Res. 287. Appropriations/Procedural Vote on Bill Making Appropriations for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Other Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 2361, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, objected to the rule, noting that it prohibited Democrats from offering important amendments, including one to "to fully restore EPA's State and Tribal Grant Program, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to their fiscal 2004 levels." (Alcee Hastings (D-FL).) Democrats expressed other substantive concerns about the bill, including what they characterized as its failure to adequately fund the EPA and its proposed cuts in many programs vital to the health and well-being of the country and its citizens. They also argued that the reason so many of these cuts were being proposed was that the President's tax cuts had left the government without enough money to fund many of these important federal programs, like those run through the EPA. Republicans countered that the rule permitted almost any amendment to be offered. They also addressed the bill on a substantive level, saying that it prioritized the limited resources available in order to preserve the environment, fund Indian health programs, preserve historical landmarks and public resources like national parks and help the Interior Department fight wildfires. The House defeated the Progressive position and ordered the previous question on this rule by a straight party-line vote of 215 to 194. Thus, the House proceeded to pass the rule and begin consideration of a bill that would have a critical impact on U.S. preservation of landmarks, conservation, Indian health and other related programs, but to which Democrats were forbidden to offer amendments. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation HEALTH CARE— Native American Health Care MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security. In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Bennie Thompson (D-MS) to recommit with instructions a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (A motion to recommit with instructions means a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This motion is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) Taking the Progressive position, Thompson explained that he sought to recommit the bill in order to authorize sufficient funding for DHS to be able to carry out its mission of securing the U.S. from terrorist and other threats and to address the problem of unscreened cargo on passenger jets. Republicans opposed the motion, noting that it failed to address the question of where the funds would come from. Republicans also stated that the motion was unnecessary because the bill had bipartisan support. In a loss for Progressives, the House defeated this motion by a virtually party-line vote of 199 to 228. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with what many Democrats believed to be important security gaps intact. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Democratic Substitute Amendment to Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security. In this vote, the House rejected a Democratic substitute amendment offered by Bennie Thompson (D-MS) to H.R. 1817. (A substitute amendment is an amendment whose language is intended to replace wholly the language of the underlying bill.) H.R. 1817 was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Taking the Progressive position, Thompson argued that H.R. 1817 would leave dangerous gaps in America's national security, including "gaps in chemical plants, aviation, railroads, passenger trains and railroads, buses, border security, the ability of first responders to communicate in an emergency, the importance of protecting privacy, and a whole host of other areas where we must improve security." Democrats in particular expressed concerns about what they perceived to be the bill's failure to address adequately security at chemical plants and the question of screening cargo on passenger jets. Thompson further argued that his substitute amendment would address those gaps in a number of ways, including authorizing substantial additional funds for areas of homeland security that he characterized as either inadequately addressed or not addressed at all in the bill. Republicans countered that Thompson's Democratic substitute amendment would interfere with management decisions within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and would spend $7 billion more than was necessary for DHS's functions. They also felt that the substitute language did not adequately address intelligence issues or the problem of preventing a nuclear terrorist attack. Progressives were defeated when the House voted down this substitute amendment 196 to 230, in a virtually party-line vote. Thus, the House proceeded to vote on the DHS authorization bill with what many Democrats believed to be important security gaps intact. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Require Secretary of Homeland Security to Submit Report to Congress Regarding Border Violence. In this vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to Congress within six months a report regarding violence on U.S. borders. Jackson-Lee offered the amendment to H.R. 1817, which was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Taking the Progressive position, Jackson-Lee expressed particular concern over potential border violence that might occur when private citizen volunteers are involved in securing America's borders. Specifically, she mentioned a group called The Minuteman Project that had been patrolling the Texas-Mexico border. Republicans disagreed, stating that volunteers have begun to enforce America's borders due to their frustration over the federal government's failure to do so. They added that groups such as The Minutemen were performing a valuable service, and noted that no violence had occurred thus far where the Minutemen were involved. Additionally, they noted that a study was unnecessary because the facts that it would uncover were already available. Progressives lost in this vote when the House defeated this amendment by a vote of 182 to 245, with 20 Democrats joining Republicans to vote. Thus, no study was commissioned in the bill with regard to U.S. border violence. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Clarify State and Local Authority with Regard to Illegal Aliens and to Require the Department of Homeland Security to Develop Training Manuals for Law Enforcement. In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Charlie Norwood (R-GA) to clarify state and local authority with regard to illegal aliens and to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop training manuals for law enforcement. Norwood offered his amendment to H.R. 1817, which was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Many Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the amendment would grant new authority to state and local law enforcement to "pick up immigrants and deport them unilaterally." (Bennie Thompson (D-MS).) They also argued that the amendment would divert state and local law enforcement's limited resources away from dealing with crimes like murder, rape, etc., and that it would place an "unfunded burden" on states and localities. (Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).) Most Republicans disagreed. Norwood argued that state and local law enforcement already had the authority they needed to "assist[] in the apprehension, detention, and transport of illegal aliens in the routine course of their daily duties," and that his amendment would merely clarify that authority. He maintained that his amendment would not permit local law enforcement to deport anyone. The House defeated the Progressive position and passed this amendment by a vote of 242 to 185, with 26 Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the amendment, and 11 Republicans voting against it with the Democrats. Thus, language was added to the bill stating that state and local law enforcement officials could assist in enforcing certain aspects of immigration law and that DHS ought to develop training manuals to state and local officials regarding this topic. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Increase Funding for the Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Kendrick Meek (D-FL) to increase funding for the office of the Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security. H.R. 1817 was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Making the Progressive argument, Meek pointed out that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the largest "department" in the world, and as such, needed an inspecting arm that was appropriately funded to carry out its vast responsibilities. He also maintained that the office needed sufficient funds to curb waste and abuse in the Department. Meek noted that "[t]he spending on contracts alone was $6.1 billion in 2004, and in 2005 it moved up to $10.9 billion. That is a 40 percent increase in 1 year. It is literally impossible for the Inspector General's office to keep up not only with the policing of the Department but to ensure that the mission's integrity is followed through on." Republicans countered, however, that the amendment did not provide a sufficient offset in funding (reduction elsewhere to cover proposed cost) to make up for the increases the amendment proposed. They also stated that if the increase were granted, it would make the Department larger than it needed to be. The House defeated Progressives by voting down the amendment 184 to 244, with 18 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with the Republicans. Thus, the Inspector General's office at the Department of Homeland Security did not receive an increase in funding authorization beyond that which was provided in the original bill language. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
H. Res. 283. Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security. In this vote, the House passed the governing rule for H.R. 1817, a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was a follow-up to vote number 181. The authorization process is the means by which Congress oversees the operation of a department or program. This authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security was the first time Congress acted to renew the programs of that department since its inception. Democrats, including Progressives, readily acknowledged the need for a strong Department of Homeland Security and hailed a number of the bill's provisions, but expressed disappointment over the Republicans' issuance of a rule that would not permit Democrats to offer numerous amendments which Democrats deemed important. These included amendments to address areas where some representatives felt security was lacking, including specific amendments to require screening of cargo on passenger flights and of airplane workers, to improve rail safety, etc. Democrats also stressed the importance of congressional oversight, noting that "we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Republicans countered that the rule for this bill permitted a large number of amendments to be offered on the House floor: 25. They also insisted, with some agreement from Democrats, that the bill represented a good first start for oversight over the Department. In a defeat for Progressives, the House passed this rule by a vote of 284 to 124, with 63 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with the Republicans. Thus, the House proceeded to a debate on the first-ever authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. However, the debate would not include several amendments that Democrats felt were important to the functions of the Department. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
H. Res. 283. Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security. In this vote, the House agreed to order the previous question regarding the governing rule for H.R. 1817, a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) The authorization process is the means by which Congress oversees the operation of a department or program. This authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security was the first time Congress acted to renew the programs of that department since its inception. Democrats, including Progressives, readily acknowledged the need for a strong Department of Homeland Security and hailed a number of the bill's provisions, but expressed disappointment over the Republicans' issuance of a rule that would not permit Democrats to offer numerous amendments which Democrats deemed important. These included amendments to address areas where some representatives felt security was lacking, including specific amendments to require screening of both cargo on passenger flights and of airplane workers, to improve rail safety, etc. Democrats also stressed the importance of congressional oversight, noting that "we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Republicans countered that the rule for this bill permitted a large number of amendments to be offered on the House floor: 25. They also insisted, with agreement from some Democrats, that the bill represented a good first start for oversight over the Department. Progressives lost in this vote when the House ordered the previous question on the rule by a vote of 226 to 199, along straight party lines. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on the governing rule and then to debate on various amendments of the first-ever authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. However, the debate would not include several amendments that Democrats felt were important to the functions of the Department. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Provide $100 Million to States to Help Them Comply with New Federal Standards for Driver's Licenses. In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by David Obey (D-WI) to H.R. 2360 to provide $100 million to states to help them comply with new federal standards for driver's licenses. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Obey argued that a law passed only weeks before by the House would require the states to take expensive new measures to ensure that their procedures for issuing driver's licenses would meet a federal minimum standard. He argued that it was only fair that Congress fund those measures so that the new requirements would not present an undue burden for the states. Republicans countered that there was no way to know how much it would cost states to meet the requirements of the recently passed bill; thus, it would be "premature" to allocate funding to them for this purpose. (Harold Rogers (R-KY).) Republicans also argued that the cuts Obey proposed to make in Homeland Security offices–such as those that analyze data and are responsible for communications–were undesirable in that they would reduce those offices' ability to work effectively to protect U.S. national security. In a win for Progressives, the House passed this amendment by a vote of 226 to 198, with 32 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with the Democrats. Thus, H.R. 2360 included $100 million to help states meet the requirements of recently passed legislation mandating that states meet minimum federal standards for issuing driver's licenses. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit Use of Funds in the Bill to Close Any Immigration or Customs Detention Facility that was In Use in 2005. In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Gregory Meeks (D-NY) to prohibit the use of funds in H.R. 2360 to close any immigration or customs detention facility that was in use in 2005. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Meeks, who represents part of New York City, offered this amendment in response to what he called "the recent actions of the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin closing the only secure detention center in New York City for noncriminal foreign nationals who enter our country illegally." Taking the Progressive position, Meeks maintained that the only way the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could determine if a person initially detained at J.F.K. Airport (JFK) in New York was "'high risk' or 'low risk'" was to detain them at the detention facility in Queens, New York, not far from JFK, where an investigation could be undertaken to determine if the person had criminal intent. Failing to do this, he argued, would simply be to release potentially dangerous people "into the streets." Republicans countered that Meeks's amendment would unduly "tie the hands" of the ICE, "unnecessarily limit[ing] ICE's ability to efficiently manage the limited detention bed space that it has." (Harold Rogers (R-KY).) Progressives, most other Democrats and 22 Republicans backed Meeks's effort, but he did not have enough support to win and the House defeated this amendment by a vote of 199 to 223. 18 Democrats crossed party lines to vote no with the Republicans. Thus, the bill continued to permit the Department of Homeland Security to close a detention facility in Queens that has the purpose of detaining for investigation people suspected of having criminal motives who are entering the country through JFK. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Prevent Homeland Security Funds from Going to State and Local Governments that Refuse to Share Information with Federal Authorities. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to prevent Homeland Security funds from going to state and local governments that refuse to share information with federal authorities. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Tancredo alleged that "many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. When local governments refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest criminal aliens time and again, only to release them without ever having checked their immigration status. As a result, instead of being deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes oftentimes." Taking the Progressive position, Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN) argued that because no registry or list existed of states and localities that follow these policies, the impact of the amendment was unknown and unpredictable. Joe Crowley (D-NY) also noted that this amendment would "coerce[] state and local police officers to step into the role of federal immigration agents." The amendment, argued Democrats, would not better protect crime victims, but it would endanger homeland security. Progressives won this vote 165 to 258, with 65 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with the Democrats and to defeat this amendment. Thus, no language conditioning state and local government homeland security funds on information-sharing with the federal government was added to the bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Provide Additional Funding to Increase Security at Chemical Plants and Facilities. In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to H.R. 2360. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Menendez's amendment provided an additional $50 million beyond what was allocated in H.R. 2360 to enhance security at chemical plants and facilities. Arguing the Progressive position, Menendez noted that each time the Department of Homeland Security raised the terrorist threat level, state and local governments were forced to spend millions of dollars. This necessity, he argued, was placing a financial burden on these governments, particularly in districts such as his that were densely populated and contained large areas that could be seriously affected by a terrorist attack on a chemical plant. Most Republicans opposed the amendment, however, citing three reasons for their position. First, they argued that the bill already included $50 million for "critical infrastructure protection, including chemical plants . . . ." (Harold Rogers (R-KY).) Second, they noted that they had already put in the legislative history for the bill "very strong report language directing the Department to continue and complete the vulnerability assessments of all critical chemical facilities in the country." (Rogers.) (Legislative history is the documentation of the steps that a bill goes through to become a law. When bills emerge from committee to be considered on the House floor, the prevailing party's staff will write a "committee report" to accompany the bill language. This report discusses both sides' views, input from the public if relevant, goals for the bill, etc.) Third, they argued that as Menendez's amendment would take the $50 million needed from the Office of the Undersecretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security, the necessary outcome of that transfer would be to lay off workers. Progressives won this vote when the House approved this amendment by a vote of 225 to 198. 35 Republicans joined with the Democrats to force this extra $50 million to be spent to increase security at chemical plants in the U.S. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
H. Res. 278. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Fund the Department of Homeland Security in Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House adopted the governing rule for H.R. 2360, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was a follow-up to vote number 174. Each year, Congress must appropriate funds to be spent by the various departments of the federal government in the following fiscal year. Because the Department of Homeland Security was a relatively new department, procedures and politics relating to its congressional oversight and funding were somewhat uncertain. Both Democrats and Republicans expressed some concerns over information that they said the Department of Homeland Security had refused to turn over to Congress, despite repeated requests. Republicans initially disagreed amongst themselves over the bill due to an internal turf battle between committee chairs, but were able to resolve that difference just prior to this vote. Democrats, including Progressives, attacked the Republican infighting as detrimental to the critical function of the Department of Homeland Security: "This bill is being eviscerated because of a juvenile, a juvenile, dispute within the Republican caucus about committee jurisdictions. It is . . . dung hill politics, where people put the welfare of their own committee ahead of the welfare of this institution and the welfare of the country. It is little league politics at its worst." (David Obey (D-WI).) Democrats from the subcommittee that had drawn up the bill also criticized what they viewed as the efforts of some of the Republicans to scuttle the bill, which emerged from the subcommittee with some bipartisan agreement. Democrats also opposed the rule because it would not permit Obey to offer an amendment to provide additional funding for border security. Republicans won this vote on the rule when the House adopted the rule by winning a straight party-line vote of 222 to 185. Thus, the House proceeded to consideration of the bill to provide appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY06. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
H. Res. 278. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Fund the Department of Homeland Security in Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House agreed to order the previous question regarding the governing rule for H.R. 2360, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Each year, Congress must appropriate funds to be spent by the various departments of the federal government in the following fiscal year. Because the Department of Homeland Security was a relatively new department, procedures and politics relating to its congressional oversight and funding were somewhat uncertain. Both Democrats and Republicans expressed some concerns over information that they said the Department of Homeland Security had refused to turn over to Congress, despite repeated requests. Republicans initially disagreed amongst themselves over the bill due to an internal turf battle between committee chairs, but were able to resolve that difference just prior to this vote. Democrats, including Progressives, attacked the Republican infighting as detrimental to the functioning of the Department of Homeland Security: "This bill is being eviscerated because of a juvenile, a juvenile, dispute within the Republican caucus about committee jurisdictions. It is . . . dung hill politics, where people put the welfare of their own committee ahead of the welfare of this institution and the welfare of the country. It is little league politics at its worst." (David Obey (D-WI).) Democrats from the subcommittee that had drawn up the bill also criticized what they viewed as the efforts of some of the Republicans to scuttle the bill, which had emerged from the subcommittee with some bipartisan agreement. Democrats also opposed the rule because it would not permit Obey to offer an amendment to provide additional funding for border security. The House defeated the Progressive position and ordered the previous question for the rule by a straight party-line vote of 223 to 185. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on adoption of the rule and consideration of the bill to provide appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY06 on the terms chosen by Republicans. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
H.R. 1544. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Reduce Number of Cities Eligible for First-Responder Grants. In this vote, the House overwhelmingly defeated an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to reduce the number of cities that would be eligible for first-responder grants under H.R. 1544. H.R. 1544 was a bill to change the way the federal government allocates homeland security grants for first-responders (e.g., police and fire departments). Weiner's amendment proposed to reduce the number of cities that would be eligible for these grants in order to concentrate them on very large cities. Taking the Progressive position, Weiner argued that these grants were originally meant to have gone to only 6 major cities due to the large level of danger these cities faced from terrorism and other threats. Over the past few years, he continued, the recipient-pool had grown to include other cities, suburban areas and airport authorities. Weiner contended that any congressional increase in funds for the target cities was being diluted by the Department of Homeland Security's continued inclusion of more and more jurisdictions to which it distributed those funds, and that the Department was thus acting against the will of Congress. Weiner also stated that rural, suburban and other "areas that are not traditionally thought of as large urban areas" would not necessarily lose the ability to apply for these funds because these areas would be permitted to pool together to apply for them. Republicans and a number of Democrats disagreed, arguing that the already established limit of 1.65 million people in a "region" was a sufficient limit on which areas could receive the grants. They also stated that a focus on "cities" over "regions" was not the right focus, and that "only regional grants, not State grants, may be able to address certain unique terrorism preparedness needs, such as risks that cross interstate or international boundaries, for example, bioterrorism or agro-terrorism." (Christopher Cox (R-CA).) In a defeat for Progressives, 102 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat this amendment by a vote of 88 to 331. Thus, all qualifying cities and regions could still apply for the first-responder Homeland Security grants contained in the bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
H.R. 1279. Crime/Vote on Passage of Bill to Punish and Deter Gang Violence. In this vote, the House passed H.R. 1279, a bill intended to punish and deter gang violence. H.R. 1279 would authorize increased funding for law enforcement and prosecutors. It would also increase penalties–i.e., prison time–for violent, gang-related crimes, including authorizing the death penalty for gang-related murders. In addition, it would give the U.S. Attorney General discretion over whether to try 16 and 17-year-olds as adults, and would increase penalties for violent crimes committed by illegal aliens. Progressives acknowledged the seriousness of the gang problem in America and agreed that measures must be taken to stop it, but disagreed with Republicans about the means to achieve that goal. James McGovern (D-MA) characterized the bill as "bad policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the sponsors claim it will do." He stated that the bill "unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing." Republicans disagreed, arguing that the bill would "creat[e] the tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets." (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) Handing a defeat to Progressives, the House passed this bill by a vote of 279 to 144, with 71 Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the bill with Republicans and 20 Republicans voting against the bill with Democrats. Thus, the House approved legislation designed to punish and deter gang-related violence, especially by means of increased prison terms for certain violent crimes and for illegal aliens. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
H.R. 1279. Crime/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions (Amend or Kill) Bill to Punish and Deter Gang Violence. In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 1279, a bill intended to punish and deter gang violence. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion to send a bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) The motion was offered by John Tierney (D-MA). Tierney's motion would have added to the bill a provision "to prohibit defrauding the government in connection with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq." (Tierney.) Taking the Progressive position, Tierney argued that "[i]t is an unfortunate fact of life that, today, in Iraq, taxpayer funds are being routinely wasted by organized corporate criminals. The American taxpayer is being defrauded by a system of distributing funds that is totally unaccountable. This not only demeans and cheapens the sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq, it endangers their lives." Republicans opposed the motion, countering that no one had offered any evidence or testimony at any point of the bill's consideration concerning Tierney's allegations. Republicans further questioned the seriousness of Democratic proposals to deal with gang-related crime. The House defeated the Progressive position by voting down this motion 198 to 227, along straight party-lines. Thus, language to prohibit corporate fraud in connection with U.S. construction efforts in Iraq was not included in the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1279 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
H.R. 1279. Crime/Vote on Amendment to Enhance Penalties for Crimes Committed by Illegal Aliens. In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to enhance penalties for crimes committed by illegal aliens and to list immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center Database. Goodlatte offered this amendment to H.R. 1279, a bill intended to punish and deter gang violence. Specifically, his amendment would add 5 years imprisonment to any violent-crime or drug-trafficking offense if the offender was an illegal alien, and 15 years if the alien had already been deported once and then had illegally re-entered the country. Goodlatte asserted that his amendment was necessary to deal with a gang known as "MS-13," which Newsweek had recently termed "the most violent gang in America." Goodlatte alleged that gang members who were arrested were merely deported, after which they would assume new identities and slip into the United States once again to continue their misdeeds. Thus, Goodlatte argued that they actually needed to be imprisoned in order to remove them from the streets. Taking the Progressive position, Bobby Scott (D-VA) countered that "[w]e are trying to get rid of criminals from coming into the country [sic], and what the gentleman is doing in this amendment is keeping them in the country. In other words, deporting them is not good enough. We want to keep them in our prison systems, which now house more citizens, and now, we are adding noncitizens to the population of those incarcerated in America." Maxine Waters (D-CA) agreed with Scott, noting that U.S. taxpayers would have to bear the financial cost of incarcerating these additional prisoners. In a defeat for Progressives, the House voted 266 to 198 to approve the amendment, with 51 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Republicans. Thus, additional penalties for crimes committed by illegal aliens were added to the legislation intended to fight gang violence. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
H. Res. 268. Crime/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of a Bill to Punish and Deter Gang Violence. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 1279, a bill designed to punish and deter gang violence. The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1279, meaning that by approving the rule, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the governing rule for H.R. 1279. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Both Democrats and Republicans addressed the substance of the gang-violence bill in the course of their debate. H.R. 1279 would authorize increased funding for law enforcement and prosecutors. It would also increase penalties–i.e., prison time–for violent gang-related crimes, including authorizing the death penalty for gang-related murders. In addition, it would give the U.S. Attorney General discretion over whether to try 16 and 17-year-olds as adults. Progressives acknowledged the seriousness of the gang problem in America and agreed that measures must be taken to stop it, but disagreed with Republicans about the means to achieve that goal. James McGovern (D-MA) characterized the bill as "bad policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the sponsors claim it will do." He stated that the bill "unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing." Republicans disagreed, arguing that the bill would "creat[e] the tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets." (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) Progressives lost this vote when the House approved the resolution with a straight party-line vote of 227 to 198. Thus, the House proceeded to substantive consideration of H.R. 1279, a bill designed to punish and deter gang violence. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Immigration/Vote on Final Passage of H.R. 1268, an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims. In this vote, the House passed H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims. The House was considering the conference report for H.R. 1268, which is the reconciled version of a bill that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body. (The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, without changes, before it can be sent to the President for his signature.) This vote was closely related to vote numbers 159 and 160. The bill provided more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing amongst the states procedures for obtaining driver's licenses. Democrats alleged that U.S. funds were being squandered in the course of the war. They also argued that funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be determined as part of Congress's ordinary budget process, not in this "emergency" context, because these needs could be foreseen and ought to be considered at the same time as the country's other needs. In addition, a number of Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, calling them "highly restrictive, punitive measures that will burden our states and, I believe, fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration, but will do great harm to those immigrants fleeing persecution, regardless of how they come to our shores seeking protection." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they represented "a very important first step towards dealing with the issue of border security." (David Dreier (R-CA).) Defeating the Progressive position, the House voted 368 to 58 to pass the legislation. 143 Democrats crossed party lines to vote with Republicans for the bill, in large part due to feelings that they needed to support legislation designed to support U.S. troops fighting overseas. Thus, the House overwhelmingly expressed its support for additional funding for U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, for providing those funds on an emergency basis, to provide relief for tsunami victims, to make it tougher for asylum applicants to prove their claims and to standardize driver's licenses procedures among the states, despite strong Democratic concerns in nearly all of these areas. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Immigration/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims. In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion offered by David Obey (D-WI) to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 1268. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion to send the bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) This vote was closely related to vote numbers 159 and 161. H.R. 1268 was an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims. The House was considering the conference report for H.R. 1268, which is the reconciled version of a bill that emerges after negotiations from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body. (The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, without changes, before it can be sent to the President for his signature.) Obey's motion would have instructed the conferees to increase funding for the office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats, including Progressives, supported the motion as a means of protesting the legislation itself, which provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those foreign nationals claiming asylum in the United States and standardizing procedures amongst the states for obtaining driver's licenses. Democrats alleged that U.S. funds were being squandered in the course of the war. In addition, a number of Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, calling them "highly restrictive, punitive measures that will . . . fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they represented "a very important first step towards dealing with the issue of border security." (David Dreier (R-CA).) Handing the Progressives a defeat, the House voted 201 to 225–virtually along party lines–to defeat the motion to recommit. Thus, the House proceeded with consideration and a vote on final passage of legislation to provide additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for relief for tsunami victims, and to make significant changes in some aspects of U.S. immigration law. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
H. Res. 258. Appropriations/Immigration/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims. (A conference report is the version of a bill or resolution that emerges after negotiations from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions by each body; the report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate.) (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, meaning that by approving H. Res. 258, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the governing rule for H.R. 1268. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was closely related to vote numbers 160 and 161. Both Democrats and Republicans generally addressed the substance of the Emergency Supplemental bill itself in their debate over the rule. The measure provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the bill, alleging that U.S. funds were being squandered in the course of the war. In addition, a number of Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, calling them "highly restrictive, punitive measures that will . . . fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also supported the immigration-related provisions because they represented "a very important first step towards dealing with the issue of border security." (David Dreier (R-CA).) Defeating the Progressive position, the House voted 224 to 196, along straight party lines, to order the previous question on the rule for the H.R. 1268 conference report. Thus, the House moved to substantive consideration of legislation to provide additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for relief for tsunami victims, and to make significant changes to some aspects of U.S. immigration law. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
H.R. 366. Education/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Vocational and Technical Educational Bill in order to Draw Clear Boundaries Regarding Relationships between Federal Agencies and Journalists. In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion offered by George Miller (D-CA) to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 366, a bill addressing vocational and technical education. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion send a bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) Miller's motion was made in direct Democratic reaction to the public revelation that a radio commentator had been paid by the U.S. Department of Education to make public statements supporting the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind initiative. These statements were made in the guise of independent statements by Armstrong Williams, a radio commentator. No financial or other formal link between Williams and the agency or Administration was disclosed at the time of the statements. Democrats, including Progressives, were outraged, and Miller, the Ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, introduced this motion to require that "prepackaged news stories put together with Federal funds must be disclosed to viewers" and to prohibit "using public funds to pay journalists or media commentators to promote the views of the agency." Democrats criticized the Williams case as one of "covert [government] propaganda," (Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)), and deplored what they termed the misuse of much-needed taxpayer education dollars. Republicans countered that Miller's motion was a "cheap shot aimed at the administration" that "would not do a single thing to improve educational opportunities for American students." (John Boehner (R-OH).) They added that what had occurred in the Williams case was "stupid," but not "illegal or unethical." (Boehner.) The House voted 197 to 224, virtually along straight party lines, to defeat Miller's motion and the Progressive position. Thus, language aimed at delineating clearer lines between journalists and commentators and federal agencies was not adopted, and practices such as those in the Williams case were permitted to continue. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
H. Res. 253. Abortion/Vote to Table (Kill) Resolution to Change Republican-Drafted Language Describing Democratic Amendments to an Abortion-Related Bill. In this vote, the House passed a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have condemned and ordered changes to Republican-drafted language describing several Democratic amendments to an abortion-related bill. The language in question was contained in a committee report (the report accompanying the version of a bill that emerges from a committee's consideration of it; the majority–at this time, the Republicans–generally drafts the report) for H.R. 748, a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Though the House had already passed H.R. 748 the previous week, Democrats, including Progressives, were still furious over the Republican characterization of their amendments to exempt certain groups of people–such as a members of the clergy, taxi and bus drivers and a minor's grandparents–from prosecution under the bill. Republican report language described these amendments as exempting "sexual predators from prosecution." Democrats cried foul, noting that "descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are without precedent." (John Conyers (D-MI).) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), author of one of the disputed amendments, stated: "The fact is in the entire debate over that amendment, in fact, in the entire debate over all of the amendments . . . no one, no one in the majority, no one in the minority mentioned the words 'sexual predators.' No one in the committee debate said this amendment might protect sexual predators. It did not occur to anybody. So on that level the report is dishonest, and the chairman or whoever else had anything to do with it owes this body an apology." Republicans stood behind the report language, arguing, "[t]he amendments offered by the minority would have created those blanket exclusions for certain large classes of people who are not a minor's parents," and that if anyone in that category was also a sexual offender, he or she would be immune from prosecution. (James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).) The House defeated the Progressive position and voted 220 to 196, along straight party lines, to table or kill the resolution. Thus, report language was allowed to stand which Democrats alleged mischaracterized several Democratic amendments to H.R. 748 as exempting sexual predators from prosecution under that bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Passage of U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House passed the U.S. budget for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The House passed the conference report for the budget, which is the reconciled version of a bill or resolution that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions by each body. (The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate.) Democrats, including Progressives, condemned the budget, arguing that it would irresponsibly cut taxes for the wealthy while ballooning the national deficit, while failing to address critical middle-class issues such as the rising costs of health care and gasoline and making college affordable and retirement secure. They lamented cuts in programs such as food stamps and the pension program operated through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Democrats also criticized the fact that the conference report had only been filed hours before the present floor consideration, and thus they had not even been given a chance to read through it before they were required to vote on it. Republicans, however, hailed the budget, stating that it would significantly decrease the deficit while continuing to make tax cuts that would lead to increased economic growth. They noted that hard choices had to be made in cutting spending in order to reduce the deficit. They also noted that the President's full budget request for defense and homeland security had been granted. Defeating the Progressive position, the House passed the conference report on the FY06 budget by a virtually straight party line vote of 214 to 211. Thus, the House adopted and sent to the Senate a U.S. budget for FY06 that continued the President's tax-cut strategy and fully funded his defense and homeland security request while cutting other programs. These programs included some aimed at helping the poor and middle classes afford and obtain adequate health care, education, retirement and other basic needs. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
H. Res. 248. Budget/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H. Con. Res. 95, a Resolution to Establish the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of the conference report on the U.S. budget for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A conference report is the reconciled version of a bill or resolution that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions by each body. The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate.) The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution, meaning that by approving H. Res. 248, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the governing rule for H. Con. Res. 95. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats argued substantively against the FY06 budget itself, noting that "winners" in the budget included the wealthy and large corporations, while "losers" consisted of "anyone who relies on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and our Nation's veterans desperately needing health care funding, families with seniors who depend on Social Security, and any family that might have a child in need of a student loan." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Democrats criticized Republican plans to partially privatize Social Security, provide financial benefits for oil and gas companies, and continue cutting taxes while leaving a large deficit for the next generation of Americans. Republicans accused Democrats of wanting to increase taxes, and hailed what they viewed as "tax relief" included in the budget. (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) The House defeated the Progressive position and voted 228 to 196, along straight party lines, to order the previous question on the governing rule for the FY06 budget conference report. Thus, the House proceeded to pass the rule and move to substantive consideration of the FY06 budget, about which Democrats and Republicans were sharply divided. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
H. Res. 242. Budget/Procedural Vote to Consider Governing Rule for Debate of Budget. In this vote, the House passed a procedural motion to waive a House procedural rule that ordinarily requires a vote of two-thirds of the House in order to consider a bill's governing rule on the same day the Rules Committee reports it. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. The Rules Committee is the body that draws up special rules for consideration of bills. It is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) House Republicans were eager to complete consideration of the conference report (the reconciled version of a bill or resolution that emerges from a conference committee of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body; the report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate) on the annual budget resolution so that they could send it to the Senate, where they hoped it would be passed in the same week. Democrats, including Progressives, argued that there was no need to rush consideration of the budget resolution, and that the Republican majority, who had excluded Democrats altogether from the budget conference committee, had not even given Democrats an opportunity to read the budget conference report that they were now being asked to vote on. (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Republicans countered that they needed to rush the resolution's consideration on the House floor because the Senate would not be in session the following week and therefore needed to get the resolution from the House right away. (Adam Putnam (R-FL).) Republicans defeated Democrats 230 to 199, along straight party lines, to waive the relevant House rule. Thus, the House proceeded to consider the conference report on the annual U.S. budget resolution without many representatives having had a chance actually to read through it. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
H.R. 748. Abortion/Vote on Passage of a Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws. In this vote, the House passed H.R. 748, a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Progressives argued that the bill was an "extreme" measure designed to "prevent any young woman from being able to obtain an abortion, even if she is raped, or even if she is too afraid of her parents to confide in them." (John Conyers (D-MI).) They noted that especially in cases where abuse or incest has occurred, a pregnant girl might legitimately fear for her safety if she were to go to her parents. Progressives also called the bill "mean-spirited," noting that a broad range of adults in whom a girl ought to be able to turn to for help could be prosecuted, including grandparents and members of the clergy. (Conyers.) Republicans countered that the bill was "critical to both protecting our minors as well as preserving the opportunity for parents to be involved in their children's decisions." (Steve Chabot (R-OH).) They also insisted that the bill as drafted contained adequate exceptions and protections for a girl's life and physical well-being. Progressives suffered a defeat when the House passed the bill by a vote of 270 to 157, with 54 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans in favor of the bill. Thus, the House passed legislation that would criminalize the behavior of nearly anyone who helped a pregnant girl circumvent state parental consent or notification laws by transporting her across state lines to obtain an abortion. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
H.R. 748. Abortion/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) a Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws. In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 748. H.R. 748 was a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion to send a bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) This motion was offered by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and would have instructed the Judiciary Committee to add to the bill language ensuring that a father "who caused the pregnancy through rape or incest" would not have the right to sue anyone for transporting his daughter across state lines to obtain an abortion. Making the Progressive argument, Nadler stated that a father who raped his daughter should not be able to "profit from his crime." Republicans countered that any father who had raped his daughter and then tried to sue under the bill would be exposing his crime by filing the suit, and thus would be prosecuted. The House defeated Progressives and the motion to recommit by a vote of 183 to 245, with 27 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the motion. Thus, no specific language was added to the bill to prohibit a father who had raped his daughter from filing suit under the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
H.R. 748. Abortion/Vote on Amendment to Exempt Grandparents and Members of the Clergy from the Provisions of Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) to H.R. 748. H.R. 748 was a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Jackson-Lee's amendment would have exempted members of the clergy and a minor's grandparents from prosecution or civil liability (i.e., suit from, for example, a parent) under the bill. Progressives argued that adoption of this amendment would recognize that grandparents and clergy members should not be penalized by refusing to abandon young girls in desperate situations just when they are most in need of guidance from a responsible adult. They acknowledged that ideally, a girl would turn to her parents when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but noted that "in the real world, there are situations where it is impossible for a minor to tell a parent about a pregnancy, for instance, in cases of incest, where the parents physically abuse their children or in the case that I mentioned . . . of the young 13-year-old girl whose father had raped her, found out she was pregnant, and murdered her." (Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).) Republicans countered that the bill as drafted provided an exception for cases of incest, and that the amendment would provide a way to circumvent the critical goal of ensuring parental involvement when a girl is pregnant. The House defeated the Progressive position and the amendment by a vote of 177 to 252, with 37 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against the amendment, while 13 Republicans joined Democrats to vote for it. Thus, members of the clergy and a minor's grandparents could still be prosecuted and/or sued under the bill's provisions for transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
H.R. 748. Abortion/Vote on Amendment to Exempt Certain Drivers and Members of Medical Profession from the Provisions of Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws. In this vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Robert Scott (D-VA) to H.R. 748. H.R. 748 was a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Scott's amendment would have exempted taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers or others in the business of professional transport from prosecution or civil liability (i.e., suit from, for example, a parent) under the bill. Making the Progressive argument, Scott noted that the bill would make these people "criminals for the simple task of doing their job, transporting someone between two places. Now, the bill also makes conspiracy and accessory after the fact criminal violations, so a nurse or receptionist or sorority sister who calls the cab could also be prosecuted for the Federal crime." Most Republicans opposed the amendment, calling it "an assault on the family," (Steve Chabot (R-OH)), and noting that, "[t]he amendment would allow the creation of an entire for-profit, interstate taxicab network specifically designed to thwart State parental notification laws." (James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).) They also maintained that someone like a cab driver who had no knowledge of why he was driving someone to a location where she would receive an abortion would not have the required criminal intent and thus could not be prosecuted under the bill's provisions. The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by a vote of 179 to 245, with 34 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the amendment, and 15 Republicans opting to vote with the Democrats. Thus, taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers or others in the business of professional transport could still be prosecuted and/or sued under the bill's provisions for transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
H. Res. 22. Small Business/Procedural Vote on a Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Congress that U.S. Small Business Owners Are Entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit H. Res. 22, a resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress (a nonbinding resolution) that U.S. small business owners are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. (A motion to recommit is a motion to send the bill back to committee. It is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill it.) Sponsored by Ric Keller (R-FL), the resolution expressed the sentiment that small businesses in the U.S. ought to have certain rights, including: the right to band together to obtain affordable health insurance; the right to favorable tax laws; "the right to be free from frivolous lawsuits;" the right to be "free from unnecessary . . . regulations and paperwork;" "the right to relief from high energy costs;" and other rights. Progressives opposed the resolution, saying that it would do "nothing more than offer empty promises to small businesses, empty promises that Congress probably will not keep." (Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).) Democrats, including Progressives, were also angry because the Republican majority had prevented them from offering amendments that the Democrats maintained would have included important priorities for small businesses, including "strengthen[ing] programs for minority entrepreneurs," and supporting a microloan program that the Administration had eliminated in its budget proposal. (Doris Matsui (D-CA).) Republicans countered that the resolution would provide "a blueprint for Congress to follow" in order to create an improved environment for small businesses and to allow those businesses to create jobs. (Keller.) Republicans also asserted that the Democrats had had ample opportunity to air their concerns and make amendments to the legislation in committee. The House defeated Progressives and the motion to recommit by a vote of 188 to 222. Thus, the House went on to pass a "Small Business Bill of Rights" that set forth nonbinding principles with the stated purpose of helping small businesses thrive. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
H. Res. 236. Abortion/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws. In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 748, a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Progressives strongly opposed the legislation, noting that not only would the bill interfere with a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, but it would also threaten broad categories of individuals–such as grandmothers, members of the clergy and cab drivers–with imprisonment. Democrats, including Progressives, were also irate about a provision in the Rules Committee's report (the Rules Committee is the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of bills and issues them in the form of "reports;" the Committee is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) which they maintained intentionally mischaracterized an amendment that Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) had wished to offer to the bill on the House floor. Nadler's amendment, which the Rules Committee did not permit him to offer on the House floor, would have exempted grandparents and clergy members from the bill's sanctions. The Rules Committee's report described Nadler's amendment as one which "could [have been] used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill." Republicans insisted that "this bill has absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any protection according [sic] to not only her but also her parents under the laws of her State." (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) With regard to the controversy over the Rules Committee's wording of Nadler's amendment, they maintained that the difference in viewpoint was merely one of "intent versus effect," (Gingrey); in other words, they argued that their report language addressed the actual potential effects of Nadler's amendment, while Nadler's own description of his amendment only addressed the amendment's goal. By way of example, Republicans further explained their language by noting that if either a grandparent or a member of the clergy were a sexual predator, Nadler's language would have exempted that person from prosecution under the statute. The House voted 234 to 192 to order the previous question on the resolution. Thus, Progressives were defeated and consideration of the bill restricting the transportation of minors across state lines in order to avoid state parental consent or notification laws to obtain an abortion proceeded. Democrats, however, continued to fume over the Republicans' characterization of one of the Democrats' amendments. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
H. Res. 235. Small Business/Procedural Vote for the Governing Rule on H. Res. 22, a Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Congress that U.S. Small Business Owners Are Entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. In this vote, the House approved the rule governing consideration of H. Res. 22, a resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress (a nonbinding resolution) that U.S. small business owners are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, protested that the majority party in Congress-the Republicans-had "muted debate on a piece of legislation for no legitimate reason." (Doris Matsui (D-CA).) Republicans had shut down debate after rejecting several Democratic amendments when the resolution was first considered in the Small Business Committee, and then the Rules Committee had issued a rule that prohibited anyone-including Democrats-from offering amendments on the House floor. Democrats maintained that their amendments would have included important priorities for U.S. small businesses, including "strengthen[ing] programs for minority entrepreneurs," and supporting a microloan program that the Administration had eliminated in its budget proposal. (Matsui.) Republicans focused their debate on what small businesses needed to thrive in the U.S., what had been done already by Congress toward meeting those needs-like passing the elimination of the estate tax and The Energy Policy Act of 2005-and what still needed to be done; for example, stemming the rising cost to small businesses of providing health insurance for their employees. They also asserted that the Democrats had had ample opportunity to air their concerns and make amendments to the legislation in committee. Finally, they asserted that anyone who opposed this Small Business Bill of Rights would by definition be in favor of: "higher health insurance costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paper work and red tape, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital and more obstacles to getting government contracts." (Rick Keller (R-FL).) This vote was actually a procedural one to "order the previous question" on the rule for the resolution, meaning that winning the vote meant ending debate, preventing further amendments and proceeding immediately to a vote on the rule. Progressives were defeated when the House voted 228 to 201 along straight party lines to order the previous question on the governing rule for the Sense of the Congress resolution in support of a Small Business Bill of Rights. Thus, they voted to override Democratic procedural concerns and to move to the next step toward passage of a resolution in favor of a Small Business Bill of Rights. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Passage of The Energy Policy Act of 2005, a Comprehensive Bill Dealing with Research and Development of Numerous Sources of Energy In this vote, the House passed The Energy Policy Act of 2005, a comprehensive bill dealing with research and development of numerous sources of energy. Making the Progressive argument, Eliot Engel (D-NY) condemned the bill as favoring "special interests over consumers." Progressives specifically criticized a number of the bill's provisions, including those that: protected manufacturers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MBTE), a gasoline additive, from product liability lawsuits; authorized the spending of significant funds on behalf of the nuclear power industry; allowed for the first time drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); repealed the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which they alleged would allow large companies to drive smaller utility companies out of business; and included "a variety of special-interest favors for oil and gas production despite the fact that producers are already reaping profits from record high energy prices" and that these measures would not reduce gas prices. (Martin Meehan (D-MA).) All in all, they maintained that the bill was wrongheaded in that it would not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and it did not take a sufficiently forward-looking approach to energy production, conservation and consumption. Republicans, however, hailed the legislation. They cited the rising price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. and said that the bill would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and thus improve U.S. energy security, take a major step toward production of environmentally safe, renewable fuels, boost citizen access to more fuel-efficient cars, provide incentives to state and local governments to acquire alternatively-fueled vehicles, and create jobs. (Dennis Hastert (R-IL).) Handing Progressives a defeat, the House passed The Energy Policy Act of 2005 by a vote of 249 to 183, with a 41 Democrats joining Republicans to vote in favor of the bill while 22 Republicans opted to vote against the bill with most Democrats. Thus, the House adopted a comprehensive energy bill that took a number of steps that might or might not successfully reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but did specifically permit drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and provide a waiver of liability for manufacturers of the gasoline additive MBTE, amongst numerous other provisions. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Nuclear Energy Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Nuclear Energy ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Automobile Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Nuclear Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Provision to Alter States' Roles in Relation to That of Federal Government Regarding the Location of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Michael Castle (R-DE) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have altered the role of the states in relation to that of the federal government regarding the determination of where to locate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. LNG terminals are facilities for receiving and distributing LNG. As LNG can cause explosions, supporters of this amendment argued that states ought to have the right to ensure that these facilities were established in locations sufficiently distant from dense populations, or to meet other state interests. The language of H.R. 6, they maintained, would remove the requirement that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) base its decision on whether to locate an LNG facility on a particular site "on community support or opposition, which it does now." (Castle.) But state and local governments, amendment supporters argued, would be the ones to deal with the consequences of any accident or terrorist attack on an LNG facility; thus, the ability of those governments to have a say in the decision was critical. Amendment supporters further argued that amendment opponents simply wanted to "wall out" individual state interests so that the federal government and oil industry would be free to place these facilities in densely populated areas, which are often the most easy to access. (Edward Markey (D-MA).) Those who opposed the Castle amendment and supported the language in H.R. 6 countered that importation of LNG was a necessary means of obtaining additional fuel supplies for the U.S. and thus, consequently, of checking the undesirable rise in electricity and other prices. Moreover, they insisted that states would still have a role in determining the sites for LNG facilities and that safety was being ensured. The House defeated the Progressive position and this amendment by a vote of 194 to 237, with 43 Democrats and 35 Republicans crossing party lines to vote. Thus, language arguably diminishing the role of states in deciding where to locate volatile liquefied natural gas facilities was left in the energy bill. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Codify Executive Orders Issued by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to Achieve "Environmental Justice," Meaning to Collect Data and Develop Policies to Alleviate the Impact of Pollution on Minority and Low-Income Communities. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have put into law executive orders issued by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton that aimed to achieve "environmental justice." (Executive orders can be reversed by subsequent executive orders; statutes (provisions of the U.S. code) must be reversed by other acts of Congress or overturned by a judicial act.) These orders mandated the collection of data and consequent development of policies to alleviate the impact of pollution on minority and low-income communities, which Progressives and other amendment supporters argued suffer disproportionate negative effects from pollution. Hastings stated that his amendment would have "establishe[d] offices of environmental justice in appropriate agencies and reestablishe[d] the Interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice." In addition, he noted that "[p]erhaps, most importantly, the amendment represents the first time ever that Congress has attempted to define the term 'environmental justice.'" Arguing the Progressive position, Hastings noted that "more than 70 percent of African Americans and Latinos, compared to only 58 percent of the majority community, live in counties which regularly fail to meet current clean air standards." Finally, he added that "[i]t is not by coincidence that the majority of power plants and refineries in the United States are built in low-incomes [sic] areas. The land is cheap, the political influence of the neighborhood is virtually nonexistent, and in the bill we are considering this week, such siting is actually encouraged." Republicans countered that the existing executive orders were sufficient to achieve the cause of environmental justice, and that additional "environmental restrictions and quotas" would result if Hastings's amendment were passed, and that these would only inhibit necessary growth in "economically disadvantaged communities." The House defeated the Progressive position on this amendment by a vote of 185 to 243, with 19 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the amendment. Thus, the measures ordered by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to achieve environmental justice were not put into law as part of the energy bill, and therefore remained subject to override by a single, at will retraction by a current or future president. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Remove from Energy Bill Provision Shielding Manufacturers of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MBTE) from Product Liability Lawsuits. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Lois Capps (D-CA) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have removed from the bill provisions shielding manufacturers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MBTE) from product liability lawsuits. MTBE has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging that it has polluted drinking water, and Democrats criticized Republicans' efforts to shield oil companies from liability. Protecting oil companies, explained Democrats, would impose up to $29 billion of clean-up costs on the states themselves. Moreover, Capps stated that the provision represented an improper "unfunded mandate," or a measure that would impose costs on the states without providing funding to cover those costs. Republicans countered that the energy bill would direct that some money from an existing trust fund of $2 billion go toward the cost of MTBE cleanup, and that fundamental questions concerning MTBE have still not been resolved (including the question of whether MTBE is itself a defective product). They also argued that amendment supporters had offered no proof that the energy bill provision represented an unfunded mandate. Progressives lost on this issue when the House defeated the amendment by a vote of 213 to 219, with 14 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against the amendment. 25 Republicans opted to vote with the Democrats in favor of the amendment. Thus, the provision in the bill shielding MBTE manufacturers from product liability lawsuits remained, thereby arguably leaving the responsibility and cost of cleanup of MTBE pollution with states and communities. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike Provision of Energy Bill Halting Collection of Royalty Fees from Oil and Gas Companies Operating in Deep Waters of Gulf of Mexico. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Ra??l Grijalva (D-AZ) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have stricken from the bill a provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to stop collecting royalty fees for the government from oil and gas companies operating in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Calling the provision a giveaway to gas and oil companies, Progressives and other amendment supporters cited a recent statement by President Bush to support their argument that the provision in H.R. 6 was unnecessary: "With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas." (Nick Rahall (D-WV) et al., citing President George W. Bush, in the Washington Post, April 21, 2005.) George Miller (D-CA) called the provision "a handout to the most profitable companies in the United States." Republicans countered that the provision in the bill was not a giveaway, noting that when royalty payments had been suspended in the past, more oil companies drilled in deep waters and produced more revenues than would otherwise have been the case. One representative stated: "[t]he language as written is common-sense language that encourages production and allows large investments. We are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe a billion. We are talking about drilling in deep water where there is great risk. This relief provision allows these companies to get the access to capital they need to take these risks." (Bobby Jindal (R-LA).) Progressives lost this vote when the House defeated the amendment 203 to 227, with 27 Democrats-primarily from oil-producing states-crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans. 29 Republicans voted with Democrats against the amendment. Thus, the provision stating that oil and gas companies operating in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico would not have to pay royalties to the government remained in the bill. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Authorize a Study on the Feasibility of Using Mustard Seed as a Feedstock for Biodiesel. In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, to authorize a study on the feasibility of using mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel. (Biodiesel is a clean-burning, alternative fuel made from fresh or waste vegetable oils, animal fats or similar substances.) Kucinich argued on behalf of his amendment that mustard seed offered "many advantages over other feedstocks, including higher oil content, it is easier to grow in colder and drier climates of the U.S., and the conversion process leaves behind an organic pesticide and herbicide." Kucinich also cited mustard seed's "deep roots in all cultures" and in the Bible to demonstrate its importance. Opponents of the amendment made no argument on the floor of the House. Progressives won this issue when the amendment passed by a vote of 259 to 171, with 68 Republicans joining Democrats to support it. Thus, a provision authorizing a study on the feasibility of using mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel was included in the energy bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Energy Bill to Require a Study of Consolidation of Gasoline Retailers with Refiners, Producers, Importers and Wholesalers. In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Steve Israel (D-NY) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would require a study of the consolidation of gasoline retailers with gasoline refiners, producers, importers and wholesalers. Making the Progressive argument, Israel noted that "corporate interests are dominating pricing, controlling the market and pricing out privately owned retail outlets. Corporations are earning windfall profits while privately owned stations are struggling to keep afloat." He contended that small, independent gasoline retailers were being hurt by the fact that many large oil companies were buying up smaller companies in every part of the gasoline industry. These smaller businesses included refiners, drillers, importers, wholesalers, gas stations, etc. In addition, Israel suggested that a study such as the one he proposed would help illuminate for the public the factors behind gas prices. Republicans who opposed the amendment claimed that the study would duplicate one done the previous year, which had been "fundamentally flawed and the results [viewed] as suspect." (Ralph Hall (R-TX).) Progressives won this vote when the amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 302 to 128, with 102 Republicans joining Democrats to vote for the amendment. Thus, the energy bill set up a study of consolidation of retailers in the gasoline industry with refiners, producers, importers and wholesalers to determine the effects of such consolidation on gas prices and independent retailers. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Permit Additional Types of Renewable Fuels to Be Eligible for a Particular Grant Program in Energy Bill. In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Eliot Engel (D-NY) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would permit makers of additional types of renewable fuels, including a fuel made from "urban waste," to be eligible for grants made under the auspices of a program to fund "cellulosic biomass ethanol" and "waste-derived ethanol" (ethanols derived from wood and agricultural waste). Taking the Progressive position, Engel argued that his amendment would demonstrate Congress's seriousness regarding alternative, renewable fuels. He added that the amendment would simply open up the grant program to more renewable-fuels companies, and that the Secretary of Energy would still have the discretion to refuse to fund any company or project that was objectionable. Republicans who opposed the amendment termed it "an attempt to grant special treatment to one company, with one facility, in one State." (George Radanovich (R-CA).) Progressives won this vote when the House approved this amendment by a vote of 239 to 190, with 45 Republicans joining Democrats to support it. Thus, this particular renewable energy grant program was expanded in the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Section Creating a Federally Funded Research and Development Program for Uranium Mining. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Tom Udall (D-NM) to strike from H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, a section creating a federally funded research and development program for uranium mining. Making the Progressive argument, Udall called the relevant section of the bill "a $30 million giveaway to dangerous uranium mine technology." He expressed concern over polluted water supplies that could result from uranium mining, and attacked the provision as "corporate welfare" that would unduly and negatively effect the Navajo population of his home state, New Mexico. Udall summed up the effects of the provision: "At its worst, this section targets a minority community with a dangerous technology and uses them in an experiment. At best, it is an unwarranted giveaway to the uranium mining industry." Republicans countered that uranium mining was an essential component for domestic nuclear power production, which in turn was an important source of domestic fuel. In addition, they stated that the fund in the bill would enable researchers to discover more "environmentally sensitive" ways "to feed the growing demand for nuclear power." (Joe Barton (R-TX).) The House defeated the Progressive position when it voted down this amendment 204 to 225, with 24 Republicans and 23 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with the other party. Thus, a $30 million research and development program for the uranium mining industry was left in the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Nuclear Energy Industry ENVIRONMENT— Nuclear Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Nuclear Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Replace Electricity Provisions in Energy Bill. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by John Dingell (D-MI) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have made several changes to the electricity provisions of the bill. These changes were designed to prevent and punish fraudulent behavior by electricity companies and to protect consumers. Most of them involved broadening the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and reversing the bill's repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which Dingell argued in the Republican-drafted bill would "leav[e] consumers and investors even more vulnerable to deception by Enron-type players who concoct "special purpose entities'" to move money around while hiding behind complex, opaque corporate structures." Republicans countered that Dingell's amendment would have gutted the bill, "creat[ing] market uncertainty, . . . impos[ing] excessive penalties, and . . . institute[ing] almost continuous investigation of all utilities with market-based rates, not only burdening utilities, but also burdening FERC and stretching its resources." Progressives lost in this vote when the House defeated this amendment 188 to 243, with 19 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, efforts to enhance the provisions in H.R. 6 that focused on anti-fraud activities by utility companies were left out of the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Language That Would Permit Oil and Gas Exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Edward Markey (D-MA) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, to strike language in the bill which would permit oil and gas exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Whether oil and gas companies should be permitted to drill in ANWR had long been a hot-button issue for environmentalists and energy concerns alike. Arguing the Progressive position, Markey noted the pristine quality of ANWR: "[t]he Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure, a place of ancient wilderness that remains much the same as it was at the end of the last Ice Age. It is one of the few places remaining in America where man has not scarred the land." He emphasized the precedent that would be set by allowing the protection afforded nature in ANWR to be violated, saying that such an action would be to "say good-bye to protection of all 544 [wildlife] refuges in this country." In addition, Progressives stated that "[d]rilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years, yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there." (Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).) Republicans countered that a big focus of the energy bill was to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and that drilling in ANWR would provide an important step in that direction by opening a new source of domestic oil. They further argued that the impact of drilling on wildlife would be minimal, and at least one representative maintained the area in question was not "pristine wilderness" but "frozen tundra." (Jim Gibbons (R-NV).) The Progressives were defeated when this amendment failed by a vote of 200 to 231, with 29 Republicans and 30 Democrats crossing party lines to vote. Thus, the House paved the way to drill for oil and gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Raise Average Fuel Economy Standards for Cars from 25 Miles Per Gallon to 33 Miles Per Gallon By 2015. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to raise average fuel economy standards for cars from 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon by 2105. Arguing the Progressive position, Boehlert cited reduction in U.S. dependence on foreign oil as a key reason for his amendment. He also noted that "we have been losing ground on fuel economy. We use more gas to drive a mile today than we did 20 years ago." Other rationales he offered for his amendment included the fact that the National Academy of Sciences had indicated that it would be possible to improve fuel economy without compromising safety, and that consumers were sick of paying $40 or $50 to fill up the tanks of their automobiles. Republicans, along with a few Democrats from auto industry-heavy states, countered that the actual effects of Boehlert's amendment would be to require an average fuel economy standard of 36 miles per gallon, and that the amendment would cost jobs in the auto industry, as well as dissatisfaction amongst those consumers who prefer large cars. The House voted 177 to 254 to defeat the Progressive position and this amendment, with 60 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans, and 36 Republicans choosing to vote with Democrats. Thus, a requirement to raise average auto fuel economy standards from 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon was not included in the energy bill. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Automobile Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Require the Environmental Protection Agency to Update Its Procedures for Rating Car Fuel Economies In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Nancy Johnson (R-CT) to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update its procedures for determining cars' fuel economy ratings in order to give consumers more accurate information about the cars they might be considering for purchase. Both Democrats, including Progressives, and Republicans claimed to be concerned about the inaccuracy of fuel economy labels on cars offered for sale. Initially taking the Progressive position, Rep. Johnson stated that the test used to determine car mileage was 30 years out-of-date, and her amendment would have required the EPA to update its testing procedures to reflect more accurately modern driving conditions. However, Johnson's amendment was essentially gutted by an amendment that was in turn offered to her amendment by Mike Rogers (R-MI), which mandated that only one test be required to determine auto mileage. Republicans and a few car-industry-friendly Democrats who backed Rogers's amendment had argued that the Johnson amendment would have unreasonably increased expenses for auto manufacturers and thus cost jobs by requiring a new test beyond the fuel economy test already required under a separate law, and/or that the Johnson amendment improperly altered those standards. Progressives had countered that the Johnson amendment would not have required an additional test and would not have cost jobs, but nevertheless, the Rogers amendment was passed and tacked onto the Johnson amendment. A large number of Democrats then joined those who had backed Rogers's changes to defeat the Progressive position and pass the amended Johnson amendment by an overwhelming 346 to 85. 121 Democrats voted with Republicans, even though the meat of Johnson's amendment had been removed by the passage of the Rogers amendment. So language to require updated procedures to determine cars' fuel economy ratings was included in the energy bill, but only after that language had been diluted. This result left in place the status quo, which does not provide accurate information to consumers regarding automobile fuel economy. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Automobile Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 6 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Take a Number of Measures to Check the Rise in Gas Prices. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Timothy Bishop (D-NY) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have added to the energy bill a number of measures to check the rise in gas prices in America. These measures would have included: considering the impact on oil and gas prices when deciding to move petroleum into the national Strategic Reserve; expressing the sense of the Congress that the executive branch of the government ought to take steps to guard against price-gouging and "market manipulation" (Edward Markey (D-MA)); making it easier for federal agencies to reduce their energy consumption; creating a $5 billion trust fund for emerging technology; and creating and extending numerous tax incentives geared toward renewable energy production, increased energy efficiency and decreased energy consumption. Progressives supported this amendment as taking "some modest but useful steps toward making this energy bill a more a balanced bill and a more consumer friendly bill." (Markey.) Republicans disagreed, arguing that the amendment consisted of new language that had not had been appropriately vetted through committee and other proceedings, that it did not include any measures to increase energy production, and that it included "some sort of a scheme to fix the price of oil." (Joe Barton (R-TX).) The House defeated the Progressive position on this amendment by a vote of 170 to 259, with 33 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, these varied measures meant to check the rise in gasoline prices in the U.S. were not included in the energy bill. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Reduce U.S. Demand for Oil by at Least One Million Barrels Per Day. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Henry Waxman (D-CA) to take measures to reduce U.S. demand for oil by at least one million barrels per day from the amount of need projected in 2013. Making the Progressive argument, Waxman noted that responsible energy legislation ought to focus on conservation as well as production. He stated that his amendment sought voluntary reduction of the amount of oil wasted each year, and offered as evidence of the amendment's basic sense the fact that the U.S. Senate had passed the same amendment by a vote of 99 to 1. The amendment, he said, simply asked the "President to come up with some ideas for not wasting oil" and "to appeal to the American people on a patriotic basis that they simply should be more conscious of the waste and perhaps shut off their cars when they run into a Starbucks." Republicans countered that the language of the amendment left room for the President to take actions that could be mandatory. With regard to U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Joe Barton (R-TX) expressed skepticism, noting that "Well, oil is oil. We do get about 14 million barrels a day from overseas, and God bless us that we do. Our economy would come to a halt if we did not. So I am not sure how we would work on that." He also stated that "So the way to [reduce demand for oil] is to find ways to produce more and to find real-world ways to consume less and get more bang for the buck." Progressives lost on this issue by a vote of 166 to 262, with 52 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against the amendment and 18 Republicans choosing to vote for it. Thus, language asking the President to find ideas for ways to reduce U.S. demand on oil and then appeal to the American people to help implement them was not included in the energy bill. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Change "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" into "Strategic Fuels Reserve." In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have changed the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" into the "Strategic Fuels Reserve." In addition to changing the name of the Reserve, the amendment would have granted to the Secretary of Energy discretionary authority to include in the Reserve alternative fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Making the Progressive argument, Kaptur spoke of the need to utilize alternatives to petroleum in order to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and to find a "new fuel future" for America. In addition, she noted that farmers, including the National Farmers Union, supported the amendment. Opposing the amendment, Republicans noted that crude oil lasts indefinitely, while the contemplated alternative fuels have short shelf lives. Republicans argued that due to those short shelf lives, including those fuels in the reserve would not be effective because the fuels would constantly need to be changed. The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by a vote of 186 to 239, with 25 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans, and 12 Republicans choosing to vote with Democrats. Thus, the exclusive focus of the national Reserve remained on petroleum, and the Secretary of Energy was not granted the authority to include other fuels in the Reserve. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike Oil Refinery Revitalization Provision from Energy Bill. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Hilda Solis (D-CA) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have stricken from the energy bill a provision that would permit the Department of Energy to establish or revitalize oil refineries in places where there exist defunct refineries or manufacturing facilities and where there is high unemployment. Arguing the Progressive position, Joe Crowley (D-NY) noted: "[t]his amendment ensures that the Federal laws and regulations that pertain to ensuring clean air and water and a solid quality of life for our constituents are not stripped out just because they or their community is facing some economic distress. . . . Specifically, the Solis amendment would strip out language that cynically allows refineries to move into economically distressed communities, override Federal environmental laws, trample on local zoning laws and ignore community opposition to set up shop." Solis stated that, "[m]ost of the neighborhoods in refinery communities are low-income minority communities with the least availability to defend themselves from corporate pollution, and most are vulnerable to environmental and public health problems, yet are targets in this very language." Republicans countered that the United States needs more refineries to lessen its dependence on foreign oil, and that the provision would both help meet that goal and bring much-needed revitalization and employment to economically depressed communities. The House defeated the Progressive position and the amendment by a vote of 182 to 248, with 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote for the amendment and 33 Democrats joining the Republicans. Thus, language permitting the Department of Energy to establish or reestablish oil refineries in an expedited manner in communities with high unemployment was left in the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
H. Res. 219. Energy/Procedural Vote on Question of Whether Energy Bill Violates Federal Law Because It Would Impose Costs on States without Paying Those Costs. In this vote, the House determined that the rule for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.), was in order and the House could proceed to consideration of the energy bill. Progressives raised a point of order (interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business) against the rule, arguing that the rule-which, if adopted, would waive all points of order against the bill-was out of order because federal law forbids waivers of points of order against unfunded mandates, or provisions in bills that would impose costs on the states without providing funding to cover those costs. Specifically, Progressives-and a number of other Democrats-argued that a provision in the energy bill would shield oil companies from liability associated with the fuel additive MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging that it has polluted drinking water, and Democrats criticized Republicans' efforts to shield oil companies from liability. Protecting oil companies, explained Democrats, would impose up to $29 billion of clean-up costs on the states themselves. Republicans countered that the energy bill would direct that some money from an existing trust fund of $2 billion go toward the cost of MTBE cleanup, and that fundamental questions concerning MTBE had still not been resolved, including the question of whether MTBE is itself a defective product. Progressives lost this vote 231 to 193. Thus, the House proceeded to consideration of the energy bill despite Progressives' contention that the bill contained costs to the states without providing funding to cover those costs. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
S. 256. Bankruptcy/Vote on Passage of a Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Laws. In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed S. 256, a bill to alter federal bankruptcy laws. The bill would introduce into the bankruptcy system a "means test" based on the median incomes of individual states. This means that individuals who are determined to have sufficient means–assets–would be ordered to repay all debts, while those deemed to have insufficient means would have their debts erased after certain assets are seized. The bill also specified that certain debts, like alimony and some luxury purchases, would have to be repaid, and that the amount of equity in some personal homes that could be protected would be limited to $125,000. Other provisions would seek to limit repeat bankruptcy-filers, better inform consumers about the bankruptcy process and about the consequences of credit-card use and repayment, and make special requirements for small businesses filing for bankruptcy. Progressives criticized the legislation, objecting both to its substance and to the procedure which forbade them from offering substantive amendments to try to improve the legislation on the House floor. Offering the Progressive argument, John Conyers (D-MI) noted that S. 256 was "the most special interest-vested bill that I have ever dealt with in my career in Congress. It massively tilts the playing field in favor of banks and credit card companies and against working people and their families." Republicans countered that the changes contained in the bill would help curb abuse of the bankruptcy system, and that adequate consumer protection provisions were included in the bill. "S. 256 restores personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system and ensures that the system is fair to both debtors and creditors." (James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).) The House defeated the Progressive position and passed the bankruptcy bill by a vote of 302 to 126. Thus, legislation making sweeping changes to the U.S. bankruptcy system–including making it significantly more difficult for individuals to get out of debt by declaring bankruptcy–was passed and sent to the President for his signature. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: S 256 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
H. Res. 213. Ethics/Vote on Motion to Table (Kill) Resolution to Form a Bipartisan Task Force to Consider House Ethics Rules. In this vote, the House approved a motion made by James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to table (kill) a motion brought by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Pelosi's motion requested that the Speaker of the House form "a bi-partisan task force with equal representation of the majority and minority parties to make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process." Pelosi's motion followed Democrats' actions effectively to prevent the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the House committee with oversight over internal ethics issues) from forming due to strong objections concerning changes in the House ethics rules made earlier in 2005. At that time and as part of the process Congress goes through every two years to re-adopt the rules that will govern all of its work, Democrats had condemned the Republican-drafted ethics provisions of the proposed House rules, saying that those ethics provisions would "destroy" the House ethics process. (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Specifically, they had condemned a change in the operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Under previous rules, if the Committee, which is evenly divided between the parties, had deadlocked on an ethics complaint, the complaint would have automatically proceeded to investigators. In the new rules for this 109th Congress (each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress"), this procedure was changed so that a complaint that deadlocked the committee was permitted simply to die. In addition, Congress eliminated the requirement that the Committee act on complaints within 45 days. Democrats had then argued that these changes would effectively grant the Republicans veto power over who might or might not be subject to an ethics investigation and would permit Republicans simply to ignore complaints by "running out the clock." Republicans had countered that its entire package of rules would uphold a very high ethics standard for the House, and that these changes would guarantee due process (procedures to safeguard the rights of someone accused of wrongdoing) and "restore the presumption of innocence" to members against whom ethics complaints have been filed. The House voted 218 to 195, nearly along straight party lines, to defeat Progressives and table or kill Pelosi's motion. Thus, the impasse in the ethics committee continued, hampering any attempts to settle internal, ethics-related disputes and continuing the standoff on congressional ethics. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
H. Res. 211. Bankruptcy/Procedural Vote on the Governing Rule for S. 256, a Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Laws. In this vote, the House voted to approve the rule governing consideration of S. 256, a bill to alter federal bankruptcy laws. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) (This vote was a follow-up to vote 104, which was also a procedural vote regarding the rule for S. 256.) Democrats, including Progressives, argued vehemently against the rule because the Rules Committee (the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of a bill; it is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) had brought to the floor a closed rule that did not permit amendments to be offered. Arguing the Progressive position, one representative noted, "Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason." (Alcee Hastings (D-FL).) Republicans defended the closed rule, citing its history as "the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration" as the reason that no further amendments needed to be allowed on the House floor at this time. The House voted 227 to 199 along straight party lines to order the previous question on the rule, thus defeating the Progressive position and shutting out any opportunity for Democrats to offer amendments to the bankruptcy bill on the House floor. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
H. Res. 211. Bankruptcy/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of the Rule Governing S. 256, a Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Laws In this vote, the House voted to proceed to consideration of the rule governing S. 256, a bill to alter federal bankruptcy laws. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote This particular vote was to order the previous question on the rule for S. 256, meaning that by approving the motion, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the rule governing the bankruptcy debate. Democrats, including Progressives, argued vehemently against the rule because the Rules Committee (the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of a bill; it is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) had brought to the floor a closed rule that did not permit amendments to be offered. Arguing the Progressive position, one representative noted, "Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason." (Alcee Hastings (D-FL).) Republicans defended the closed rule, citing the legislation's history as "the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration" as the reason that no further amendments needed to be allowed on the House floor at this time. The House voted 227 to 199 along straight party lines to order the previous question on the rule, thus shutting out any opportunity to amend the bankruptcy bill on the House floor. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
H.R. 8. Taxation/Vote to Make Permanent the Repeal of the Estate Tax In this vote, the House passed H.R. 8, a bill introduced by Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is a federal tax levied on the transfer of estates (money, property, etc.) to heirs upon the estate owner's death. Congress passed legislation gradually reducing the estate tax as part of President Bush's tax-cuts in 2001. The schedule of reductions ended with elimination of the estate tax in 2010, but the elimination was set to "sunset" (end) in 2011. Republicans sought to make the elimination of the estate tax–which they referred to as the "death tax"–permanent, claiming that it is wrong to tax people's deaths and that many people who inherit family farms or small businesses are forced to give them up in order to pay the estate tax. Progressives countered that the estate tax ought to be preserved with an increase in the amount of estate exempted from the tax to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples. Progressives argued that by preserving the tax with the increased exemption, the estate tax would clearly only affect the wealthiest Americans, and the "$300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $700 billion over the decade following" was much needed revenue that could be used to shore up Social Security or the Medicare drug benefit, fully fund federal education commitments and/or eliminate contemplated cuts to Medicaid. (Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA).) They further noted that a $3 million per person exemption would ensure that the vast majority of small businesses and family farms would not be affected by the estate tax. Nevertheless, 42 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat the Progressive position and pass H.R. 8 by a vote of 272 to 162. Thus, efforts to preserve this source of federal revenue while ensuring that the vast majority of family farms and small businesses were protected was turned aside, and the House sent the bill to repeal permanently the estate tax to the Senate for its consideration. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
H.R. 8. Taxation/Vote on Amendment to Keep Estate Tax But Increase Amount of Estate Exempted from Tax to $3 Million In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 8 that would have kept the estate tax in place but significantly raised the amount of an estate that would be exempted from the tax. H.R. 8 was a bill introduced by Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) to make permanent the of repeal the estate tax. The estate tax is a federal tax levied on the transfer of estates (money, property, etc.) to heirs upon the estate owner's death. Congress passed legislation gradually reducing the estate tax as part of President Bush's tax-cuts in 2001. The schedule of reductions ended with elimination of the estate tax in 2010, but the elimination was set to "sunset" (end) in 2011. Republicans sought to make the elimination of the estate tax–which they referred to as the "death tax"–permanent, claiming that it is wrong to tax people's deaths and that many people who inherit family farms or small businesses are forced to give them up in order to pay the estate tax. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) offered a Democratic substitute amendment (language intended to replace wholly the language of the underlying bill) that would have kept the estate tax in place but raised the amount of an estate that would be exempted from the tax to $3 million for individuals or $6 million for couples. Progressives argued that with this amendment, the estate tax would clearly only affect the wealthiest Americans, and the "$300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $700 billion over the decade following" was much needed revenue that could be used to shore up Social Security or the Medicare drug benefit, fully fund federal education commitments and/or eliminate contemplated cuts to Medicaid. (Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA).) They further noted that this amendment would ensure that the vast majority of small businesses and family farms would not be affected by the estate tax. Republicans defeated the Progressive position and rejected the amendment by a vote of 194 to 238. Thus, efforts to preserve this source of federal revenue while ensuring that the vast majority of family farms and small businesses were protected was turned aside. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 202 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
S. 686. Health Care/Vote on Bill to Grant Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo the Right to Pursue in Federal Court Their Case to Have Her Feeding Tube Re-Inserted In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to grant to the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo the right to pursue in federal court their case to have her feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo's case sparked national attention following years of legal battle between various family members concerning whether, due to her persistently vegetative state, her feeding tube ought to be removed and she should be allowed to die. Progressives objected strenuously to this legislation, noting that the Florida courts had already spoken in this matter and that Congress ought not to substitute the judgment of the federal courts simply because they did not like the outcome of the case as it emerged from the state court. Moreover, they argued, no one in Congress had had the opportunity or the ability to examine Schiavo medically, and Congress had no business intervening and substituting its judgment for that of Schiavo's husband, doctors or of the Florida courts. Republicans countered that Schiavo's case was a basic right-to-life case, and that it was both appropriate and necessary that Congress intervene where others would not in order to save Schiavo's life. The House passed the bill by a vote of 203 to 58, with 47 Democrats choosing to vote with the Republicans. Press reports at the time ascribe the low turnout for this vote to the fact that it was held on a Saturday, as well as reluctance by some representatives to openly oppose the Religious Right on this issue. Thus, the House set a precedent of both interjecting federal court jurisdiction into what had been a state court case and of inserting itself into the question of who has the right to make life-or-death medical decisions when someone is unable to make them him or herself. HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Final Passage of Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006. In this vote, the House passed a budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06). The first step in Congress's annual budget process, following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. Progressives opposed the Republican-drafted budget resolution because they believed that it reflected the wrong priorities for the nation. Among other factors in their opposition, they cited the transformation of a federal surplus into a federal deficit in four years as an example of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Bush Administration, and what they characterized as wrongheaded tax cuts for the wealthy and spending that resulted from poor planning in Iraq. They also claimed that the Republican-drafted budget was dishonest: "It does not cut the deficit in half as Republicans claim. In fact, it makes the deficit worse. Republicans leave out the realistic cost of the war, the cost of expiring tax provisions, the true cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax and the cost of any changes to Social Security. The budget is dishonest in another way: it fails to show any deficit figures at all after 2010." (Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).) In particular, they touched on the hot-button issue of the future of Social Security: "It is clear that there would be plenty of money to deal with the Social Security trust fund if the President were not using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America." (Pelosi.) Democrats called instead for reduction of tax benefits for the wealthy: "The priorities in this budget are all wrong. Our priorities should focus on helping those who need help before we begin to help those who don't." (John Dingell (D-MI). They also advocated increased spending on priorities such as education, health care and veterans' benefits. Republicans countered that Democrats sought "more money, more spending, higher taxes, more government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more laws, more politicians making decisions that individuals and families and communities should be making for themselves in the freest nation on the face of the Earth." (Jim Nussle (R-IA).) Further, they argued, reducing spending in general was the top priority after defense and homeland security. The House passed the Republican-drafted budget resolution by a vote of 218 to 214. Thus, the House supported a budget for FY06 that left in place a large deficit as well as large tax cuts, and heavily emphasized defense and homeland security. It also reduced spending in or provided smaller increases than those sought by Progressives for spending for education, health care and other domestic issues. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Amendment to Replace Republican-Drafted Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution with Budget Reflecting Democratic Priorities. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by John Spratt (D-SC) to replace the Republican-drafted Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) budget resolution with a budget that reflected Democratic priorities. Following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, the first step in Congress's annual budget process is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. Democrats opposed the FY06 budget brought by Republicans to the floor because the Democrats believed, among other things, that the Republican budget prioritized tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans over spending on domestic priorities like education, health care, veterans' benefits, etc. As a result, Spratt offered this amendment, which was a budget proposal meant to replace the Republican resolution. Progressives argued that the Spratt amendment would balance the budget by 2012 and reflect important priorities like protecting Social Security and Medicaid, and other crucial domestic programs. Republicans countered that their budget reflected appropriately the nation's most important priorities, especially with its emphasis on defense and homeland security, and that it would promote economic growth through continued tax cuts. The House defeated the Progressive position and the Spratt amendment by a vote of 165 to 264, with 36 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, consideration of the budget proposal reflecting Republican priorities such as defense, homeland security and tax cuts continued. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
H.R. 1332. Health Care/Procedural Vote on Motion that the Committee on the Whole House Rise. In this vote, the House defeated a motion that the "Whole House Rise." This vote was a move by Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to protest the passage late the previous night of H.R. 1332, "The Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005." H.R. 1332 was drafted in response to the case of Theresa Marie Schiavo, whose parents sought the right to pursue in federal court their case to have her feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo's case sparked national attention following years of legal battle between various family members concerning whether, due to her persistently vegetative state, her feeding tube ought to be removed and she should be allowed to die. The Republican leadership had brought H.R. 1332 to the House floor late the previous night when many representatives were not present, and they had brought it up under "suspension of the rules." "Suspension of the rules" is a procedure usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Under that procedure, debate is strictly limited, amendments are prohibited and a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage. H.R. 1332 passed the House in that context by a mere voice vote (meaning that representatives were not required to record their individual votes). Blumenauer felt that the manner in which this legislation had been considered "bypassed proper legislative procedure," and that few representatives had even noticed that the legislation had been considered and passed. Thus, in the midst of a debate the next day about the budget, Blumenauer brought this procedural motion that the "Whole House Rise." (The House sometimes conducts its floor proceedings constituted as a "Committee of the Whole House," which symbolically puts the whole body on a par with other House Committees, for example, the Budget or the Judiciary Committee. The Committee on the Whole House, however, consists of all members of the House. The Committee of the Whole House "rises" when it has completed action on a bill to report the amended bill back to the House.) The sole purpose of this motion was to force representatives to come physically to the House floor so that Blumenauer could bring H.R. 1332 and the late-night proceedings under which it passed to the attention of the rest of the House. Members of the minority party–presently the Democrats–will often use procedural votes to register dissatisfaction with House proceedings, particularly if more substantive options are limited. Blumenauer said in a statement that, "[w]hile I have been hesitant in the past to use such procedural devices, I feel that this was a necessary step to bring the House's attention to a pressing matter. . . ." In the days preceding the vote on H.R. 1332, Progressives had objected strenuously to any intervention of Congress in the Schiavo case, noting that the Florida courts had already spoken in this matter and that Congress ought not to substitute the judgment of the federal courts simply because they did not like the outcome of the case as it emerged from the state court. Republicans had countered that Schiavo's case was a basic right-to-life case, and that it was both appropriate and necessary that Congress intervene where others would not in order to save Schiavo's life. The motion that the whole House rise was defeated by a vote of 101 to 313, with 89 Democrats joining Republicans to defeat the Progressive position. However, Blumenauer did succeed in drawing attention to the previous night's passage of H.R. 1332 by voice vote. HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Amendment to Replace Republican-Drafted Budget with Budget Reflecting Priorities of Congressional Black Caucus In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Melvin Watt (D-NC) on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The CBC's amendment would have substituted language reflecting their budgetary priorities as a replacement for those contained in the Republican-drafted budget resolution being considered on the House floor. The CBC priorities included restoring cuts made in the Republican-drafted budget and making increases in particular areas of the budget, including education (including providing full funding for the "No Child Left Behind Act," which authorizes most federal funding for public K-12 schools in America), job training and creation, community development, law enforcement, measures to help veterans, and others. The CBC's amendment also proposed to increase revenue by making a number of changes to the tax code, including rescinding tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and eliminating various tax shelters and loopholes. (The first step in Congress's annual budget process, following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year.) Arguing the Progressive position, Robert Scott (D-VA) noted the following regarding the CBC's amendment: "Its focus is to reduce disparities that exist in America's communities by investing in the priorities and challenges that Americans face today. It also provides significant support for our troops in Iraq. At the same time, the CBC budget alternative accomplishes these goals in a manner that is much more fiscally responsible than the Republican budget, so much so, as this chart shows, the budget deficit each year is much less, a total of a $167 billion deficit reduction over 5 years, so much so that it saves just in interest cost alone $27.5 billion over 5 years." Republicans countered that the CBC budget would have authorized too much spending in general and not enough defense spending, and that it would have raised taxes. In short, they believed that the amendment reflected the wrong priorities, noting especially that, "I think it is important that we keep cutting taxes for years to come so that we can keep this economic growth going." (Patrick McHenry (R-NC).) The House defeated Progressives and the CBC amendment by a vote of 134 to 292, with 67 more conservative Democrats opting to vote with the Republicans. Thus, consideration of a budget resolution prioritizing tax cuts primarily for wealthy Americans over spending in areas such as education, veterans' assistance, etc. continued. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Amendment to Increase Spending in Fiscal Year 2006 Budget in Areas of Education, Health Care, Veterans Needs, Homeland Security, the Environment and Infrastructure, and to Decrease Tax Benefits for People Earning More Than $1 Million. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06). The amendment was offered by David Obey (D-WI). Obey's amendment proposed alternative budgetary priorities to those presented in the Republican-drafted resolution. His amendment would have increased by $15.8 billion spending authorization in the areas of education, health care, veterans needs, homeland security, the environment and infrastructure. It also would have decreased tax benefits for people earning more than $1 million, which he claimed would bring in $25.818 billion in revenue to offset the additional spending. (The first step in Congress's annual budget process, following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year.) Arguing the Progressive position, Obey claimed that the President's budget proposal made too drastic cuts in education, health care and the other areas mentioned above, and that those cuts didn't even fulfill the President's stated goal of reducing the national deficit. In arguing that his amendment would make tax policy more equitable, he noted that, "[t]hirty years ago, we had the smallest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country in the world. Today, we have the largest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized country." Republicans countered that Obey's amendment would have authorized too much spending, except for in the area of defense, where they claimed it would not have authorized enough. They also objected to the higher taxes for the wealthy proposed in the amendment. The House defeated Progressives and the Obey amendment by a vote of 180 to 242, with 24 Democrats joining Republicans. Thus; spending in the FY06 budget on education, environment, health care and other areas did not increase from what was contained in the budget resolution being considered, and tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans were preserved. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
H. Res. 154. Budget/Procedural Vote on the Governing Rule for H. Con. Res. 95, the Bill to Set the United States Government Budget for Fiscal 2006. In this vote, the House voted to approve the rule governing consideration of H. Con. Res. 95, a bill to set the United States government budget for Fiscal 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) (This vote was a follow-up to vote 78, which was also a procedural vote regarding the rule for H.Con. Res. 95.) The first step in Congress's annual budget process is to pass a non-binding budget resolution, which establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. Representatives focused their debate concerning the rule on the substance of the underlying budget resolution. Opposing the rule, Democrats–including Progressives–criticized the priorities set forth in the Republican-drafted FY06 budget resolution: "[t]he majority's budget resolution throws an additional $106 billion in tax cuts to the Nation's wealthiest, while cutting billions in crucial funding for health care, education and housing programs; programs that help the hardworking Americans get by from day-to-day; programs that give hope to mothers and fathers that they, too, may one day share in the American dream." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) They also expressed concerns about numerous other issues arising from the budget resolution as drafted, claiming that it hid the costs of Social Security privatization and deploring the included level of spending on the war in Iraq. Republicans countered that the budget resolution reflected sound tax and tax-cut policies. In general, they argued that it provided a balanced approach to important issues, including Social Security privatization and the war in Iraq, which they linked to the "war on terror." They further noted that the events of September 11, 2001 necessitated a reordering of national priorities to prevent further attacks, and that that reorganization was reflected appropriately in the resolution. The House voted 228 to 196 on a straight party-line vote to approve the rule for the FY06 budget resolution; thus allowing the House to proceed to consideration of the actual budget. However, some amendments Democrats wished to offer to oppose Social Security privatization and reflect other Democratic priorities were not permitted as part of the resolution's consideration. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
H. Res. 154. Budget/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of the Rule Governing H. Con. Res. 95, the Bill to Set the United States Government Budget for Fiscal 2006. In this vote, the House voted to proceed to consideration of the rule governing H. Con. Res. 95, a bill to set the United States government budget for Fiscal 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) The first step in Congress's annual budget process is to pass a non-binding budget resolution, which establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. This particular vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H. Con. Res. 95, meaning that by approving the motion, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the rule governing the budget debate. Rather than procedure, most representatives focused their debate on the substance of the underlying budget resolution. Opposing the rule, Democrats–including Progressives–criticized the priorities set forth in the Republican-drafted FY06 budget resolution: "[t]he majority's budget resolution throws an additional $106 billion in tax cuts to the Nation's wealthiest, while cutting billions in crucial funding for health care, education and housing programs; programs that help the hardworking Americans get by from day-to-day; programs that give hope to mothers and fathers that they, too, may one day share in the American dream." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) They also expressed concerns about numerous other issues arising from the budget resolution as drafted, claiming that it hid the costs of Social Security privatization and deploring the included level of spending on the war in Iraq. Republicans countered that the budget resolution reflected sound tax and tax-cut policies. In general, they argued that it provided a balanced approach to important issues, including Social Security privatization and the war in Iraq, which they linked to the "war on terror." They further noted that the events of September 11, 2001 necessitated a reordering of national priorities to prevent further attacks, and that these new priorities that emphasized security were reflected in the resolution. The House voted 230 to 202 on a straight party-line vote to order the previous question on the rule for the FY06 budget resolution; thus moving the House one step closer to consideration of the actual budget. However, some amendments Democrats wished to offer to oppose Social Security privatization and reflect other Democratic priorities were not permitted as part of the resolution's consideration. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims in Asia. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) The measure provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states. Progressives expressed dissatisfaction with a number of aspects of the bill, including what they viewed as its failure to address the problem of federal contractors' abuse of American taxpayers' dollars in Iraq. They also objected to what they saw as the bill's inadequate provisions for veterans health-care and job-training assistance. Other Democratic concerns included a belief that funding for the war on terror ought to occur in the context of Congress's ordinary budget process, not in this "emergency" context, because these needs could be foreseen and ought to be considered at the same time as the country's other needs. Finally, a number of Progressives and other Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, in part, they said, because they were "unrelated" to the rest of the bill and because they would "allow millions of people to drive our streets and freeways without insurance or a driver's license [by denying driver's licenses to illegal immigrants]." (Joe Baca (D-CA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they "seek[] to prevent another catastrophic terrorist act by deterring terrorist travel." (Christopher Cox (R-CA).) The House passed the Emergency Supplemental bill by a vote of 388 to 43, handing the Progressives a defeat. 162 Democrats voted "yes" with Republicans for this additional funding to support ongoing U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, the House sent a bill that had the House's overwhelming support to the Senate to spend nearly $80 billion in additional funds (beyond expenses already budgeted for Fiscal Year 2005) for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Darlene Hooley (D-OR) to recommit with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation) H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) Hooley's motion would have required that the bill be changed to include $100 million in health and $50 million in job-training assistance for veterans. Progressives and other Democrats argued that the United States was not providing adequate assistance for veterans even as the country asked "more of its all-volunteer military force than it ever has before," (Hooley), and that even more was needed than the amount of funding called for in this motion. Republicans countered that speed was essential in passing the overall bill in order to provide the needed funds for the Middle East conflict and tsunami relief that were the bill's focus, and that recommitting the bill would result in delay. The House defeated the Progressives and the motion to recommit by a nearly party-line vote of 200 to 229. Thus, no additional money for veterans' health and job training assistance was included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Foreign Aid/Vote on Amendment to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Prohibit Federal Funds in This Bill From Being Used to Assist Saudi Arabia. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that would have prohibited any federal funds from this bill from being used to assist Saudi Arabia. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.) Making the Progressive argument, Weiner stated that the Saudis were exporting terrorism and Wahabism (an extremely conservative–some say fanatical–sect of Islam) and that human rights were suffering in that country. Thus, he argued, none of the U.S. funds being appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental ought to go to the Saudis. Republicans countered that no funds were directed to the Saudis in the legislation as drafted, and that in any event, a prohibition against sending U.S. foreign aid funds to Saudi Arabia was already included and enshrined in law via the regular foreign aid appropriations bill passed in the previous year. The House defeated the Progressive position and Weiner's amendment by a vote of 196 to 231, with 39 Republicans and 44 Democrats crossing party lines in the vote. Thus, no explicit stipulation that Saudi Arabia could not receive U.S. foreign aid funds was included in the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill. WAR & PEACE— Relations with Saudi Arabia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Defense/Vote on Amendment to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Spend $5 Million to Establish a Select Committee to Investigate Contracts and Related Federal Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill offered by John Tierney (D-MA) that would have moved $5 million from the Department of Defense to the Congress for the purposes of establishing a committee to investigate contracts and related federal spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "Emergency Supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.) Progressives argued that the public harbored "substantial doubt" about federal spending, particularly in Iraq, and that it was necessary to form a committee "which will have as its sole responsibility the reviewing of the use and misuse of taxpayer funds in Iraq." (David Obey (D-WI).) They added that Congress had a fiscal responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars were being spent appropriately, and that the desire to ensure that this was the case ought to be a bipartisan interest. Several Democrats cited as precedent the Truman Commission formed to examine American defense spending during World War II. They noted that that Commission had bipartisan support and is credited with saving taxpayers $15 billion. (Russ Carnahan (D-MO).) Republicans offered little argument on the floor against Tierney's amendment, although they did express a lack of confidence that the proposed committee would act as described by Democrats. The House defeated this amendment and the Progressive position by a vote of 191 to 236. Thus, no committee to investigate federal contracts and related spending in Iraq and Afghanistan was formed. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Veterans/Procedural Vote on Whether to Overrule Chair's Decision that Amendment Proposing Appropriation for Veterans' Health Administration May Not Be Considered As Part of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill. In this procedural vote, the House voted to uphold a decision by the Chair of the House proceedings that an amendment offered by Bob Filner (D-CA) that proposed to make a $3.1 billion appropriation for the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) could not be considered. Filner had offered the amendment as part of the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill then being debated on the House floor. Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005. As part of the bill's consideration, Filner offered his amendment to provide $3.1 billion for the VHA. Arguing the Progressive position, Filner stated that the money would be necessary "for the veterans of this Nation, especially those who are returning from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan who may not be able to get the services they need for a variety of wounds, both physical and mental." Jerry Lewis (R-CA) then raised a point of order (an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business), citing a House rule that forbids substantive legislation (meaning legislation that will "chang[e] existing law," as opposed to simply appropriate funds) from being offered on an appropriations bill. Lewis added that the funds needed for the VHA were already being considered in a more appropriate venue. The rule against what is known as "legislating on an appropriations bill" is frequently disregarded in the appropriations process when the House opts to suspend the rules for purposes of considering a particular piece of legislation. In this case, the Chair of the House ruled that Lewis's point of order was correct, and Filner asked for a recorded vote on whether the Chair's opinion ought to be upheld or overruled. Progressives lost this vote when the House upheld the Chair's opinion that the $3.1 billion for the VHA constituted legislation on an appropriations bill. The vote was 224 to 200 along straight party lines. Thus, the additional $3.1 billion for the Veterans' Health Administration was not included in the bill authorizing additional funds beyond those originally budgeted in 2005. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
H. Res. 153. Ethics/Procedural Vote to Table (Kill) Resolution to Establish Bipartisan Task Force to Recommend Changes to House Ethics Rules. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 1268, a bill to provide emergency supplemental funds for U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for other purposes. The vote was on ordering the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1268, meaning that by approving the resolution, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the measure preventing the minority-in this case, the Democrats-from offering amendments they believed to be critical. (A "rule" sets forth what amendments House members may offer with respect to a particular piece of legislation, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A bill's governing rule often reflects the majority party position on the underlying bill.) Progressives opposed the resolution both because of limits the Republican-dominated Rules Committee imposed on the bill's consideration and because they opposed the substance of the bill. Progressives' reasons behind their objections included: first, they felt that there was a lack of accountability with regard to the funding of contractors in Iraq; second, they objected to the fact that the rule would permit "points of order" to eliminate provisions in the bill increasing death-related military benefits (a "point of order" is an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business); third, they objected to the rule's prohibition on considering several Democratic amendments, including some dealing with veterans health and mental health care; fourth, they objected to Republican intentions to attach another provision restricting the ability of aliens to prove asylum cases to the bill, as well as several other reasons. Republicans countered that these emergency supplemental funds were necessary to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the immigration measure was critical for U.S. efforts to keep potential terrorists out of the United States or to expel them if they are already here. On a nearly straight party-line vote of 220 to 195, the House accepted the rule to proceed with consideration of the emergency supplemental funding bill, including the immigration measure. Thus, Democrats were prevented from offering numerous provisions they deemed important-such as health and mental health care for veterans-during consideration of the bill. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
H. Res. 151. Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 1268, a Bill to Provide Emergency Supplemental Funds Primarily for U.S. Military Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 1268, a bill to provide emergency supplemental funds for U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for other purposes. The vote was on ordering the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1268, meaning that by approving the resolution, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the measure preventing the minority-in this case, the Democrats-from offering amendments they believed to be critical. (A "rule" sets forth what amendments House members may offer with respect to a particular piece of legislation, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A bill's governing rule often reflects the majority party position on the underlying bill.) Progressives opposed the resolution both because of limits the Republican-dominated Rules Committee imposed on the bill's consideration and because they opposed the substance of the bill. Progressives' reasons behind their objections included: first, they felt that there was a lack of accountability with regard to the funding of contractors in Iraq; second, they objected to the fact that the rule would permit "points of order" to eliminate provisions in the bill increasing death-related military benefits (a "point of order" is an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business); third, they objected to the rule's prohibition on considering several Democratic amendments, including some dealing with veterans health and mental health care; fourth, they objected to Republican intentions to attach another provision restricting the ability of aliens to prove asylum cases to the bill, as well as several other reasons. Republicans countered that these emergency supplemental funds were necessary to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the immigration measure was critical for U.S. efforts to keep potential terrorists out of the United States or to expel them if they are already here. On a nearly straight party-line vote of 220 to 195, the House accepted the rule to proceed with consideration of the emergency supplemental funding bill, including the immigration measure. Thus, Democrats were prevented from offering numerous provisions they deemed important-such as health and mental health care for veterans-during consideration of the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions Bill Reauthorizing the Nation's Surface Transportation Laws. In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Brian Higgins (D-NY) to recommit to committee with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation) H.R. 3. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives supported the motion, which they stated would have closed loopholes or tax shelters that permit companies to outsource jobs, thus resulting in an additional $34 billion in revenue for the United States while preserving jobs. That revenue, they contended, could be used to increase federal investment in national infrastructure. Progressives further argued that the President and Senate had both indicated support for providing additional funding for U.S. surface transportation needs. Republicans countered that while the Senate had indeed voted the previous year to authorize the additional $34 billion, that very fact had killed the most recent attempt at passing a highway bill. They hailed the current bill as "a very well-crafted, bipartisan effort[.]" (Don Young (R-AK).) Young continued: "this [motion] would disrupt what I would say is a great chariot that is going to go off on to the horizon and [to] become law." The House defeated the motion by a nearly party-line vote of 190 to 235; thus, the bill went on to a vote on final passage without closing the tax loopholes that make it easier for companies to move jobs offshore. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Amendment to Grant Urbanized Areas with Small Transit Systems Additional Flexibility Regarding How to Spend Their Federal Transit Funds. In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Joseph Pitts (R-PA) to H.R. 3 that would grant urbanized areas with small transit systems (e.g., public bus systems) additional flexibility regarding how to spend their federal transit funds. H.R. 3 was a bill reauthorizing the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. James Oberstar (D-MN) argued on behalf of most Progressives and many other Democrats and Republicans that allowing these areas additional flexibility to use their federal transit funds for ordinary operating expenses would violate an earlier carefully developed compromise regarding the formulas for distribution of these funds. Oberstar added that tacking this amendment onto the bill would "create confusion and would create unfairness among users, among other transit systems across the country." Pitts, on behalf of many other Republicans and Democrats (at least some of whom were from districts that included small urbanized areas), countered that because the current formula causes smaller urbanized areas to lose funding as they grow, that law "punishes smaller transit systems and the communities they serve simply because they are thriving. These smaller transit systems rely on budget flexibility and cannot make major revisions overnight." (James McGovern (D-MA).) He emphasized that these systems need time to determine how to make up for the shortfall under the formula caused by their growth. The House approved this amendment by a vote of 228 to 197 with many representatives crossing party lines due in part to interests particular to their districts. Thus, language permitting urbanized areas additional flexibility with regard to the use of their federal transit funds was incorporated into the bill. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Amendment to remove from the bill language mandating that states establishing HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes include a lower fee for low-income drivers. In this vote, the Senate approved an amendment offered by Tom Davis (R-VA) to remove language from H.R. 3 that would have mandated that states establishing HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes include a lower fee for low-income drivers. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives argued that creating HOT lanes without a reduced fee for low-income drivers would result in highway lanes for the use of the wealthy only, and that low-income workers might be "tolled out of" jobs that would require them to use those roads. (James Oberstar (D-MN).) Republicans countered that the tolls on these lanes represent "user fees, not taxes," and that requiring "income-based tolling" would make the HOT lanes extremely difficult to administrate and would discourage the critical formation of public-private partnerships to fund road construction and improvements. (Davis.) The House approved Davis's amendment by a vote of 224 to 201; thus, language requiring that low-income drivers be permitted to pay reduced rates on HOT lanes was removed from the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Amendment to Eliminate State "Vicarious" Liability for Car or Truck Rental Companies Provided That There is No Negligence or Criminal Wrongdoing on the Part of Those Companies In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Sam Graves (R-MO) to H.R. 3 that would eliminate "vicarious" liability-holding the company that owns a rented or leased car or truck responsible for the wrongdoing of someone who has rented or leased the vehicle-for car or truck rental companies, provided that there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing by the company in question. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives opposed the amendment on the grounds that it would allow rental companies to rent or lease vehicles to uninsured drivers, thus leaving the injured victims in accidents caused by those drivers with nowhere to turn for financial relief. They further objected to the fact that the amendment would override the laws of 15 states and the District of Columbia, which currently permit victims to seek compensation for their injuries through vicarious liability. Republicans countered that the amendment would merely bring the laws of a few states into conformity with the laws of most of the others and that it would "restore fair competition to the car and truck renting and leasing industry." (Graves.) They added that rental and leasing companies cannot control where customers drive their vehicles; thus, they can't keep people from driving into those states where vicarious liability is allowed, and therefore they must raise their rates. The amendment passed by a vote 218 to 201, with a number of representatives crossing party lines due in part to interests particular to their districts. Thus, the House inserted language into the bill mandating that states that have tried to preserve the ability of certain car or truck accident victims to seek financial compensation for their injuries may not do so when uninsured motorists driving rental cars cause accidents. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Auto & Truck Renting/Leasing Companies JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on an Amendment to Permit Tolls on New Federal Roads or New Lanes Only to Cover Costs of Building Them. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Mark Kennedy (R-MN) to H.R. 3 for a pilot program to permit the institution of tolls to cover the costs of building new federally funded roads or new lanes of federal roads, but to discontinue the tolls once these improvements have been paid for. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives, most other Democrats and numerous Republicans opposed the amendment on the grounds that dealing with traffic congestion requires a balanced, comprehensive approach, and this amendment would deny states the flexibility they need to fund their highway projects and find ways to manage their traffic flows. Kennedy, arguing on behalf of most Republicans and several Democrats, indicated that his amendment would provide needed money for road construction while winning the "trust of the driving public" by requiring the public to pay tolls only on what is needed to fund the construction of those toll roads or lanes. The House defeated this amendment by a vote of 155 to 265, with numerous Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines to vote due in part to interests particular to their districts. Thus, the federal toll highway pilot program in the bill does not include a provision for tolls to be removed once the particular, relevant highway costs have been paid for, and the tolls would continue to be charged to fund other public costs of surface transportation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on Amendment to Exempt Custom Harvesters in the State of Nebraska from Federal Restriction on Maximum Truck Length. In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Tom Osborne (R-NE) to H.R. 3 to exempt the custom harvesters in the state of Nebraska from the federal restriction establishing a maximum length for trucks. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Osborne stated that he was offering the amendment because length limits set in 1991 restricted custom harvester lengths to the then-existing limits set by each state. At that time, Nebraska's limit was 65 feet, but the limit in a number of surrounding states was roughly 80 feet. Progressives opposed the amendment, arguing that it would extend the already unsafe policy of permitting very long trucks on the roads that was grandfathered to Nebraska in the 1991 law, consequently making the roads there less safe. Most Republicans supported the amendment, countering that drivers of custom harvesters in Nebraska only now must unnecessarily double-back to the state line to retrieve all of their equipment because they can't drive very long trucks into Nebraska. This is the only way they can avoid running afoul of the length limitation. Republicans argued that this requirement thus imposes an undue and inefficient burden. A number of Democrats joined Republicans to approve this amendment by a vote of 236 to 184, thus putting in the bill a provision exempting Nebraskan custom harvesters from the safety-based length limits on trucks imposed in 1991. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on Amendment to Alter Safety Rule Governing How Much Down-Time Between Shifts is Required of Drivers of Agricultural Products During the Time of Harvest and Planting. In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Jerry Moran (R-KS) to H.R. 3 that would broaden an exemption in the safety rule governing how much down-time between shifts is required of drivers in the agricultural sector during the times of harvest and planting. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Moran's amendment would make explicit that for purposes of this rule, the definition of "agricultural product" includes "livestock, milk and other farm products." Progressives opposed this amendment, stating that it would actually broaden the agricultural-products exemption-which exists "to ensure that products grown and harvested get from the farm to market in timely fashion,"-to include "processed products, processed foods, [and] beverages" (James Oberstar (D-MN)), thus including tens of thousands more carriers in the safety exemption. Most Republicans supported the amendment, arguing that it would merely clarify the existing exemption to clear up unnecessary confusion about what the exemption covers within the agricultural sector. The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 257 to 167, with numerous Democrats voting in favor in part due to interests particular to their districts. Thus, language was added to the bill to make it clear that the agricultural exemption to this safety rule ought to be applied broadly in the sector and cover many edible products. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on Amendment to Alter Safety Rule Governing How Much Down-Time Between Shifts is Required of Drivers Transporting Oil and Gas Equipment and Machinery. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Michael Conaway (R-TX) to H.R. 3 that would have altered the safety rule governing how much down-time between shifts is required of drivers transporting oil and gas equipment and machinery. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Presently, in order to ensure that drivers of heavy equipment have adequate rest and thus do not pose a fatigue-induced danger on the roads, drivers and the companies who hire them must follow the rule of no more than 11 consecutive hours of driving and no more than 14 consecutive hours on-duty. Conaway's amendment would have removed this rule with regard to truck drivers in the oil and gas industries in favor of less stringent requirements that were in place prior to January 2004. Progressives, together with a number of other Democrats and Republicans, opposed the amendment, stating that road safety must be the top priority regardless of industry and that reinstating the old rule would permit truck drivers to be back on the road after only two hours of rest. Republicans who supported the amendment argued that the current restrictions place an undue, inefficient burden on oil and gas companies, and that returning to the old rule would not compromise highway safety. Progressives won this amendment by a vote of 198 to 226, with a number of both Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines due in part to both regional and oil and gas industry interests. Thus, the House bill went forward with this safety requirement for oil and gas industry drivers intact. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
H.R. 841. Governance/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Require, in Extraordinary Circumstances, States to Hold Special Elections to Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives No More Than 49 Days After the Vacancy is Announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In this vote, the House passed a bill that would require states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives no more than 49 days after the vacancies are announced by the Speaker of the House if more than 100 members of the House have been killed or incapacitated. This legislation was prompted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and had been discussed by Congress since that time. Progressives argued that 49 days was an insufficient period of time in which to put together fair and accurate special elections, and they pushed for a period of 60 days. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) stated that 60 days "is a more practical and realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large number of States." She also noted that a 60-day deadline "would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary and a special election is still a high bar to meet." Republicans countered that in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack or other disaster, the priority would be to ensure that the government of the United States could function, and that a 60-day period would leave too great of a vacuum. (The original language of the bill set forth a 45-day period, but Republicans later agreed to extend the period to 49 days.) Candace Miller (R-MI) argued that extending the time limit to 60 days would weaken the United States' ability to respond militarily to an event that took the lives of more than 100 members of Congress, because the War Powers Act requires Congress to approve or disapprove of any presidential military action within 60 days. She also stated that "[a] survey of election officials . . . shows that 49 days is a reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election." The bill passed by a vote of 329 to 68, thus leaving a 49-day time period in the bill for states to hold special elections in the event more than 100 members of the House of Representatives are killed or incapacitated by a terrorist attack or other catastrophe. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
H.R. 841. Governance: Procedural Vote to Recommit to Committee with Instructions A Bill to Require, in Extraordinary Circumstances, States to Hold Special Elections to Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives No More Than 49 Days After the Vacancy is Announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit to committee with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation) H.R. 841, a bill to require, in extraordinary circumstances, states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives no more than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The motion, made by John Conyers (D-MI), would have required that in the event of such an election, each state provide a minimum required number of functioning and accurate voting machines and poll workers for each precinct on the day of any special election. On behalf of Democrats, including Progressives, Conyers harkened back to the uncertainty regarding some voting procedures in Ohio following the 2004 presidential election, and stated that this amendment would help to avoid such problems in a special election. Republicans did not offer specific arguments against this amendment, but instead countered only by discussing the importance of the bill itself and ensuring that it became law to guarantee that the U.S. government could still function in the event of a devastating terrorist attack or other disaster. The motion to recommit with instructions was defeated on a straight party-line vote of 196 to 223; thus, no additional protections to ensure fair voting procedures were added to the legislation. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
H.R. 841. Governance/Vote on Amendment to Allow 5 Days to File an Appeal in U.S. District Court Following a Special Election Held Pursuant to an Announcement by the Speaker of the House Due to the Death or Disability of More Than 100 Members of the House of Representatives. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) that would have expanded by 3 days the time allowed to file an appeal in H.R. 841. H.R. 841 was a bill to require, in extraordinary circumstances when more than 100 members of the House of Representatives have been killed or disabled, states to hold special elections to fill House vacancies no more than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House. The bill as drafted by Republicans stated that in the event someone wanted to contest a special election held in these circumstances, that person or party would have 2 days to file an appeal. Jackson-Lee argued on behalf of Progressives that information does not always travel rapidly in all states, and the additional time would make the bill more fair in places not as well-equipped to respond in such rapid fashion. Her amendment also would have permitted citizens to file a suit pertaining to the special election, while the original bill would only permit the governor of a state to do so. Progressives felt that this amendment was important to ensure that democracy and citizens' rights would be preserved even in extraordinary circumstances requiring special elections. Republicans countered that the short time period was necessary to ensure the continued function of the U.S. government, and that this amendment sought lawsuits rather than elections. The House defeated the amendment by a vote of 183 to 239; thus, someone wishing to challenge the validity of a special election held under these expedited rules would have only two days to file that suit, regardless of where he or she lived in the United States. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
H.R. 841. Governance/Vote on Amendment to A Bill to Require, in Extraordinary Circumstances, States to Hold Special Elections to Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives No More Than 49 Days After the Vacancy is Announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 841, a bill to require, in extraordinary circumstances, states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives no more than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House. That amendment would have extended the deadline for holding special elections from the 49 days set forth in the bill's language to 60 days. The amendment was offered by Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA), who argued that 49 days would not be enough for states to set up and hold special elections in the event of a catastrophe claiming the lives or capacities of more than 100 members of the House. She stated that 60 days "is a more practical and realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large number of States." In addition, she noted that a 60-day deadline "would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary and a special election is still a high bar to meet." Republicans countered that expanding the time limit to 60 days would undermine the point of the bill, which was to ensure that the House could quickly reconvene and continue to govern in the event it was struck by a terrorist act or other disaster. Candace Miller (R-MI) argued that extending the time limit to 60 days would weaken the United States' ability to respond militarily to an event that took the lives of more than 100 members of Congress, because the War Powers Act requires Congress to approve or disapprove of any presidential military action within 60 days. She also stated that "[a] survey of election officials . . . shows that 49 days is a reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election." Progressives lost this vote 192 to 229, thus leaving states 49 days to hold elections in the event of a catastrophe killing or incapacitating more than 100 members of the House of Representatives. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Passage of Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs. In this vote, the House passed H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs. Most Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the bill because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youth and others (eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which they claimed could lead to federally prohibited discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youth and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) They further argued that the bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. Progressives were defeated by a vote of 224 to 200; thus, the House sent to the Senate a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs that would eliminate many of those programs and that would permit religious organizations to receive federal funding while discriminating on the basis of religion in their hiring processes. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
H.R. 27. Jobs/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit to Committee with Instructions a Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs. In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs. (A motion to recommit to committee with instructions means to send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This motion is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) Offered by Dale Kildee (D-MI), the motion would have added language to the bill providing additional assistance to veterans and individuals whose jobs have been outsourced to other countries. Progressives argued that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve more assistance than the language in H.R. 27 would provide, and that the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries is a "crisis" touching "every community in the United States." (Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).) Republicans countered that the motion to recommit was unnecessary because the U.S. economy is strong, jobs are being created, and that veterans and workers whose jobs have been outsourced already have access to services to help them find new jobs. In general, Progressives opposed the job-training bill itself because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youth and others (i.e., eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which they claimed could lead to federally prohibited discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youth and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) They further argued that the bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. Democrats, including Progressives, lost this motion in a straight party-line vote of 197 to 228; thus, additional jobs assistance for veterans and workers whose jobs had been outsourced was kept out of the bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Amendment to Remove Provision Permitting Religious Groups to Obtain Federal Job-Training Funds While Discriminating in Their Hiring on the Basis of Religion. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Bobby Scott (D-VA) to remove language in the bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs that would permit religious groups to obtain federal job-training funds while discriminating in their hiring on the basis of religion. Scott and other Progressives claimed that retaining this language in the bill would permit a setback in the area of civil rights, because not only would churches and other religious organizations be permitted to turn away job applicants based on their religion, but such a practice could lead to discrimination in other areas as well. For example, Progressives noted, discrimination based on religion could lead to the hiring, with federal funds, of persons of only certain races or of only one gender (if an individual church or other organization included among its tenets superiority of one race, or permitted only men or only women to hold certain jobs). "[T]his bill would allow a religious organization that discriminates based on religion, like a Bob Jones University, to get taxpayer money and use that Federal funding to legally discriminate on religious grounds when hiring staff to carry out the job training programs and services in this bill." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that in fact it is current law that discriminates against religion by not permitting religious organizations to compete for federal funds with other organizations and that a few other federal programs already permit religious organizations to apply for funds. Progressives lost on this issue by a vote of 186 to 239, thus leaving in the bill language that would permit religious organizations to discriminate in their hiring with federal funds. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Amendment to Allow Use of "Personal Reemployment Accounts" to Obtain Capital Needed to Start a Small Business In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) to permit the use of certain funds under the Workforce Investment Act to obtain the capital necessary to start a small business. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youths and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) H.R. 27 would establish Personal Reemployment Accounts to provide up to $3,000 to individuals looking for work; workers could choose to use these funds for job-training, child care, or other related expenses. On behalf of Progressives, Velazquez decried the Bush Administration's running of the small-business-loan program, noting that in recent years, the program has had its funding slashed and fees hiked. She stated that "[a] vote for this amendment is a vote against the Bush administration's policy raising the fees on [small business] loans," and "[i]t is a vote for our Nation's up-and-coming small business owners," because it would provide them with the means necessary to obtain a small capital loan to start a small business. Progressives also objected to the establishment of the voucher-like Personal Reemployment Accounts on the grounds that the creation of these accounts really masked a cut in funding for job-training programs. Republicans offered no specific argument on the floor against the amendment, though most supported the Personal Reemployment Accounts that would be established in the bill. Democrats, including Progressives, lost on this issue by a nearly party-line vote of 202 to 221; thus, people hoping to obtain a federal loan to start a small business would not be able to use Personal Reemployment Accounts to obtain the loans they need. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Amendment to Remove All Provisions Relating to Youth from the Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Dale Kildee (D-MI) to remove all provisions relating to youth from H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs, thus leaving current law in place. On behalf of Democrats, including Progressives, Kildee argued that the bill's targeting of federal job-training funds to youths out of school would eliminate programs that were having a very positive impact on kids who are in school. He stated that current law permits states to choose whether to focus these funds on in-school or out-of-school youths, and that states ought to retain that flexibility. Republicans countered that the changing times made it more important for these funds to be directed at youths not presently in school and that states would still retain flexibility with regard to 30 percent of these funds. In general, Progressives opposed the job-training bill itself because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youths and others (i.e., eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which Progressives claimed could lead to federally prohibited discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youths and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) Republicans further argued that the job-training bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. Democrats, including Progressives, lost on this issue by a nearly party-line vote of 200 to 222; thus, provisions remained in the job-training bill that would prohibit states from continuing to target youth funds at both in-school and out-of-school youths even if states determine that both populations have equal needs in this area. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
H.Res. 126. Jobs/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 27, a Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed this resolution to approve the "rule" governing consideration of the job-training bill. (The Rules Committee of the House often reports a special rule that determines the structure of debate, amendments that will be allowed and other details when a particular bill is brought to the floor. The Rules Committee is dominated by the majority party, and thus a bill's governing rule often favors that party's position. Additionally, a vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) On behalf of Democrats, James McGovern (D-MA) argued that the Republican leadership was consistently preventing Democrats from offering important amendments to legislation, and this job-training bill was no exception. Progressives also opposed the underlying job-training bill itself because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youths and others (i.e., eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which they claimed could lead to discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that consideration of some important Democratic amendments was permitted under the rule. They added that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youth and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) Republicans further argued that the bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. In a straight party-line vote, the House approved the rule for the job-training bill 227 to 191; thus, the House proceeded to consideration of the job-training legislation without allowing the Democrats to offer several amendments on the floor that they deemed essential to a fair and constitutional job-training program. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
S. 5. Class-Action Lawsuits/Vote on Final Passage of Bill to Move Many Interstate, Class-Action Lawsuits from State to Federal Courts, Which are Less Friendly to Consumers. In this vote, the House approved S. 5, a bill to move many interstate, class-action lawsuits (multiple claims from various lawsuits with parties in more than one state combined into one, larger lawsuit) from state to federal courts and to make other changes regarding this type of lawsuit. Procedure in federal courts is generally considered less friendly to consumers than in state courts. The bill, strongly favored by corporations that assert that a glut of lawsuits is threatening their survival, would grant federal jurisdiction over these suits where the total disputed amount is larger than $5 million. Supporters of the legislation claimed that the bill would prevent what they consider to be abuses such as "forum shopping;" i.e., when lawyers file suits in the jurisdictions where plaintiffs tend to win large awards. In opposing the legislation, Progressives were joined by civil rights, consumer and other public interest groups in arguing that it would prevent seriously injured plaintiffs from obtaining justice, as the federal courts are already overburdened with case backlogs and because those courts might be less inclined to approve large monetary awards even where they are truly deserved. The House passed S. 5 by a vote of 279 to 149, thereby defeating Progressives and approving legislation that would make it more difficult for whole classes of injured consumers to obtain justice in federal courts. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
S. 5. Class-Action Lawsuits/Procedural Vote on Motion to Commit with Instructions Bill to Move Many Interstate, Class-Action Lawsuits from State to Federal Courts, Which are Less Friendly to Consumers. In this vote, the House defeated a motion to commit to committee with instructions S. 5, a bill to move many interstate, class-action lawsuits (multiple claims from various lawsuits with parties in more than one state combined into one, larger lawsuit) from state to federal courts and to make other changes regarding this type of lawsuit. (A motion to commit to committee with instructions means to send a piece of legislation to committee with instructions to take a specific action; this motion is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) Procedure in federal courts is generally considered less friendly to consumers than in state courts. The bill, strongly favored by corporations that assert that a glut of lawsuits is threatening their survival, would grant federal jurisdiction over these suits where the total disputed amount is larger than $5 million. Supporters of the legislation claimed that the bill would prevent what they consider to be abuses such as "forum shopping;" i.e., when lawyers file suits in the jurisdictions where plaintiffs tend to win large awards. In opposing the legislation, Progressives were joined by civil rights, consumer and other public interest groups in arguing that it would prevent seriously injured plaintiffs from obtaining justice, as the federal courts are already overburdened with case backlogs and because those courts might be less inclined to approve large monetary awards even where they are truly deserved. The House defeated the motion to commit with instructions by a vote of 175 to 249, thereby defeating Progressives and approving legislation that would make it more difficult for whole classes of injured consumers to obtain justice in the federal courts. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
S. 5. Class-Action Lawsuits/Vote on Conyers Substitute Amendment to Bill to Move Many Interstate, Class-Action Lawsuits from State to Federal Courts, Which are Less Friendly to Consumers. In this vote, the House defeated a substitute amendment (language intended wholly to replace the language of the underlying bill) offered by John Conyers (D-MI) to S. 5, a bill to move many interstate, class-action lawsuits (multiple claims from various lawsuits with parties in more than one state combined into one, larger lawsuit) from state to federal courts and to make other changes regarding this type of lawsuit. Procedure in federal courts is generally considered less friendly to consumers than in state courts. Conyers's amendment would have "carved out" certain types of cases from the actions proposed in S. 5, including civil rights cases, workers' rights cases, suits brought on behalf of citizens by states' attorneys general and non-class-action suits involving physical injuries (which the language of S. 5 included). The bill, strongly favored by corporations that assert that a glut of lawsuits is threatening their survival, would grant federal jurisdiction over these suits where the total disputed amount is larger than $5 million. In supporting the amendment, Progressives were joined by civil rights, consumer and other public interest groups who feared that workers, consumers and citizens in general might be prevented from obtaining justice, as the federal courts are already overburdened with case backlogs and because those courts might be less inclined to approve large monetary awards even where they are truly deserved. Opponents of the Conyers amendment claimed that S. 5 as written would prevent what they consider to be abuses such as "forum shopping;" i.e., when lawyers file suits in the jurisdictions where plaintiffs tend to win large awards. The House defeated Conyers's substitute amendment by a vote of 178 to 247, thus ensuring that the language making it more difficult for workers, consumers and many citizens to seek justice in the federal courts remained in the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
H.R. 310, a Bill to Increase Penalties for Indecent Behavior on Television or Radio. In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 310, a bill that would increase penalties for indecent behavior on television or radio. The bill, sponsored by Fred Upton (R-MI), would raise substantially the maximum fines allowable per incident to $500,000 for both broadcasters and performers, punishing performers only if they "intentionally" violate decency standards. The bill would also impose a "three-strikes" rule, requiring that a broadcaster's license be revoked following three violations. Progressives opposed to the legislation argued that the bill encouraged self-censorship and represented "Big Brother decid[ing] what constitutes free speech and artistic expression." (Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).) Republicans and a number of Democrats countered that this legislation was necessary to restore family-appropriate programming to television and radio. Most Democrats joined Republicans to approve this bill by a vote of 389 to 38; thus passing more aggressive disincentives for indecent behavior in broadcasting. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
H. Res. 95. Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 310, a Bill to Increase Penalties for Indecent Behavior on Television or Radio. In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 310, a bill to increase penalties for indecent behavior on television and radio. The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H.R. 310, meaning that by approving the resolution, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the measure preventing the minority-in this case, the Democrats-from offering amendments they believed to be critical. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party. )Democrats, including Progressives and most of whom supported the underlying legislation, expressed frustration that this rule would permit neither amendments nor debate concerning several broadcast decency-related issues they believed to be important, such as media consolidation, the elimination of the "Fairness Doctrine" that used to require that all coverage of controversial issues by a television or radio station be fair and balanced, and incidents where journalists who appeared objective were in fact paid to espouse a particular point of view. Republicans were content to leave H.R. 310 "clean," meaning that they were not interested in adding additional broadcast issues, because they knew that a narrowly-tailored bill would enjoy bipartisan support. The underlying bill, sponsored by Fred Upton (R-MI), would raise the maximum fines allowable per incident to $500,000 for both broadcasters and performers, a substantial increase. The bill would also impose a "three-strikes" rule, requiring that a broadcaster's license be revoked following three violations. In this vote, the nearly party-line vote of 230 to 198 reflected alliance with party leadership and Democratic frustration with the terms of the debate. The resolution passed and Democrats, including Progressives, were prevented from discussing what they believed to be critical issues of fairness and decency in broadcasting. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
H.R. 418. REAL ID Act/Vote on Final Passage of Bill to Make Broad Changes to Various Aspects of U.S. Immigration and Asylum Law, Including Making It Harder for Asylum-Seekers to Prove Their Cases. In this vote, the House passed The REAL ID Act (H.R. 418), a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. H.R. 418, sponsored by Sensenbrenner (R-WI), contains numerous provisions, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. According to Republican supporters, the bill was designed to keep terrorists out of the country. Progressives opposed the bill, stating that it would make it unjustifiably difficult for legitimate asylum-seekers to prove their cases. Republicans countered in part by comparing the asylum process to other judicial proceedings, asserting that H.R. 418 would merely grant to immigration judges the same tools that are already used by other judges, and asserting that the bill "is about protecting our borders and making our country safer." (Chabot, R-OH.) The bill passed by a vote 261-161; thus the bill containing new restrictions on driver's licenses and erecting new barriers for those who seek asylum was sent to the Senate for its consideration. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
H.R. 418. REAL ID Act/Vote to Defeat Motion to Recommit with Instructions (Amend or Kill) Bill to Make Broad Changes to Various Aspects of U.S. Immigration and Asylum Law, Including Making It Harder for Asylum-Seekers to Prove Their Cases. In this vote, the House voted not to recommit with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; usually a final effort by opponents of the bill to amend or kill it) H.R. 418 (The REAL ID Act), a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. H.R. 418, sponsored by Sensenbrenner (R-WI), contains numerous provisions, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. According to Republican supporters, the bill was designed to keep terrorists out of the country. Progressives opposed the bill, stating that it would make it unjustifiably difficult for legitimate asylum-seekers to prove their cases. Republicans countered in part by comparing the asylum process to other judicial proceedings, asserting that H.R. 418 would merely grant to immigration judges the same tools that are already used by other judges, and asserting that the bill "is about protecting our borders and making our country safer." (Chabot, R-OH.) A motion to recommit with instructions is generally the final effort by opponents of a bill to amend or kill legislation in a way that favors their cause. The motion to recommit failed 195 to 229-a nearly party-line vote-with almost all Democrats voting to recommit in order to show support for the leadership position; thus, the House then proceeded to vote on final passage of the bill, which contained new restrictions on driver's licenses and would erect new barriers for whose who seek asylum in the U.S. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
H.R. 418. Illegal Immigration, Homeland Security/A Vote to Defeat an Amendment to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, to Narrow a Provision Granting Broad Authority to the Secretary for Homeland Security to Waive Any Law, Including Those that Protect Workers and the Environment, that Interferes with Construction of Any Physical Barrier Designed to Impede Illegal National Border Crossings. Sam Farr (D-CA) offered an amendment to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. Changes to existing immigration law in the REAL ID Act included restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing all local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. Farr's amendment would have removed the fence-facilitating provisions from the bill. Progressives stated that they did not oppose the construction of the border fence at San Diego; rather, they argued that the provision was phrased too broadly and would give the Secretary for Homeland Security unprecedented, sweeping authority to waive any state and local laws anywhere, including child labor, environmental and other types of laws. Republicans countered that this provision was necessary because the fence-which nearly everyone agrees should be built-has been under construction without reaching completion for an unduly long time, and that the delays were at least in part due to state or local environmental barriers. (They did not raise specific arguments on the floor regarding the Democrats' contention that the bill would grant authority for waivers in places other than at San Diego.) The House defeated the amendment by a vote of 179 to 243, thus retaining in the bill language granting the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to bypass state and local laws at San Diego and elsewhere, including laws designed to protect workers and the environment. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 418 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 75 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 418, REAL ID Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
H. Res. 71. Immigration, Homeland Security/Vote to Defeat a Point of Order Regarding Mandates to be Imposed upon the States in H.R. 418, a Bill to Alter Certain Aspects of U.S. Immigration and Asylum Laws. In this vote, the House voted to overrule a point of order (an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business) made by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) against H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. Those changes would include restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. Jackson-Lee argued the Progressive position, stating that the driver's license-related provisions would unlawfully impose an "unfunded mandate" on the states, (meaning that Congress would impose some requirement or action to be taken on the individual states that would cost money, but fail to appropriate the funds needed to cover the states' costs, thus imposing a financial burden on the states), because it would require the states to take numerous measures to standardize and implement new procedures for issuing driver's licenses that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years. She pointed out that numerous important state government-related organizations, including the National Governors Association, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the National Conference of State Legislatures, opposed the bill for this reason. Republicans countered that the Progressives were overestimating the cost, and that the financial burden on the states, which was not as severe as Progressives claimed, was within the acceptable limits of the relevant budget law, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This vote was technically a procedural one-Jackson-Lee made her point of order during consideration of the rule that would govern consideration of H.R. 418. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) However, it was important substantively because the terms of the rule made it clear that neither this nor other points of order would be permitted during consideration of H.R. 418 once the rule was adopted. The House voted by a nearly party-line vote of 228-191 to defeat the point of order and allow consideration of H.R. 418, thus proceeding to consideration of a bill that would require states to spend money to take specific actions without providing the states with funding to cover the costs of those actions. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
H. Con. Res. 36. Gay Rights/Military Recruitment/Vote Expressing Congress's Continued Support for Solomon Amendment-Law that Permits Withholding of Federal Funding from Universities Which, Due to the Military's Policy of Discriminating Against Gays and Lesbians, Do Not Permit Military Recruitment on Their Campuses. In this vote, the House passed by overwhelming numbers a resolution expressing Congress's continued support for a law known as the Solomon Amendment, which permits the withholding of federal funds from universities who refuse to allow the U.S. military to recruit on their campuses. Some universities attempted to bar the military from recruiting on campus because the military's policy concerning gays and lesbians in the service violated the universities' nondiscrimination policies. The Solomon Amendment was passed to override these universities' actions. Republicans who, along with many Democrats, supported this resolution affirming the Solomon Amendment, asserted that it is critical that the military be able to recruit broadly and have access to all of the brightest, most capable young people to defend the country, particularly in a post-September 11 world and where the nation is presently at war. They maintained that if a university is not willing to allow the military access to help defend the country, then that university should be willing to forego federal funding. Progressives countered that universities should not be forced to permit a practice on their campuses that violates their own policies of nondiscrimination, and that it is the supporters of the military's policies on gays and lesbians who are depriving the U.S. military of access to as many "able-bodied people" as it would like to have in the service. (Barney Frank (D-MA).) H. Con. Res. 36 is a concurrent resolution, which is a statement expressing the intent or sentiment of Congress that must be passed by both houses, but does not require a presidential signature and does not have the force of law. The House passed this resolution by a vote of 327 to 84, thus expressing its continued support of a policy compelling universities to allow access to military recruiters. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Vote on Final Passage of Bill to Implement New Restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal Program. In this vote, the House passed H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE) that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Progressives and many other Democrats were upset that the Republican-sponsored rule governing debate of this legislation prohibited consideration of what they viewed as a reasonable amendment by Crowley (D-NY) to continue to permit the Medal to be granted to couples or groups when warranted. In addition, they argued that other restrictions imposed by the bill would be too narrow, and that had such restrictions been in place at an earlier date, many worthy individuals and groups who have received the Medal would not have been able to do so. Republicans countered that not only was the governing rule a fair one because Crowley was allowed to offer two other amendments, but in addition, the legislation was necessary because the prestige of the Congressional Gold Medal program, the "highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress" (Michael Oxley, R-OH), was becoming diluted due to the abundance of medals awarded in recent years. On January 26, 2005, the House voted 231 to 173 to pass the legislation, thus helping to establish early a tone of partisan bitterness: "Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit that has characterized the House's consideration of gold medals in the past has not carried over to the debate on this bill. . . . Does this action foretell what lies ahead in terms of the existence of bipartisanship throughout this Congress?" (Joe Crowley (D-NY).) (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Procedural Vote to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill to Implement New Restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal Program. In this vote, the House voted not to recommit with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to change significantly) H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE) that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Democrats were upset by the earlier approval of a Republican-sponsored rule governing consideration of the bill that prevented the Democrats from offering what they viewed as an entirely reasonable amendment, and thus they resorted to the bill to recommit to make their point. A motion to recommit with instructions is generally the final effort by opponents of a bill to kill or amend legislation in a way that favors their cause. The motion to recommit failed by a nearly party-line vote of 187 to 217 on January 26, 2005, thus ending the Democrats' chances to further amend the bill and setting an early tone of inter party bitterness: "Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit that has characterized the House's consideration of gold medals in the past has not carried over to the debate on this bill. . . . Does this action foretell what lies ahead in terms of the existence of bipartisanship throughout this Congress?" (Joe Crowley (D-NY).) (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Vote to Defeat an Amendment Requiring that Designation of Medal Recipients Be Evenly Divided Between the Two Political Parties. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment by Joe Crowley (D-NY) to H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE), that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Crowley's amendment would have required that the designation of Medal recipients be evenly divided between the Republicans and Democrats, which he argued would ensure that the minority party in Congress would always have at least one opportunity per year to name a worthy Medal recipient. Republicans countered that the current practice of requiring co-sponsorship by two-thirds of the Congress for any potential Medal recipient already ensures a bipartisan process. Crowley's amendment was defeated by a nearly party-line vote of 182 to 211; thus, the bill contains no official guarantee that the minority party-presently the Democrats-will be able to honor an individual of their choosing with the Congressional Gold Medal. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Vote to Defeat an Amendment Increasing Number of Congressional Gold Medals that Congress Can Award in a Two-Year Period. In this vote, the House defeated an amendment by Joe Crowley (D-NY) to H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE), that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Crowley's amendment would have increased the number of Medals that could be awarded from the number set forth in H.R. 54 to six per each two-year Congress (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress"), which he argued was only a minor change from the number specified in the bill. Crowley maintained that six per two years represented a small enough number to meet the Republicans' goals of preserving the prestige of the "highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress" (Michael Oxley, R-OH), and noted that many worthy past recipients would not have received the Medal if the restriction proposed by H.R. 54 had been in place at the time of their awards. Republicans countered that the small number of annual awards contained in H.R. 54 represented the necessary limit to contain a program that, like the commemorative coin program, had "spun out of control," and further noted that only 45 Congressional Gold Medals had been granted in the first 123 years of the United States's existence, but that "Congresses have awarded nearly 10 times that many in just 10 years." (Oxley.) Crowley's amendment was defeated by a nearly party-line vote of 189 to 212; thus, the restriction of Medal awards to two per year remained in the bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
Electoral College/Vote to Override an Objection to Certification of Presidential Electors from Ohio. In this vote, the House voted 31 to 267 to override an objection raised by Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) to the certification of electors (persons who, based on the results of the November presidential elections, were designated to cast their votes for particular candidates in the Electoral College, the constitutionally created body that technically elects the President of the United States) from Ohio in the U.S. presidential election. Jones based her objection on the grounds that the electors' votes were not "regularly given," meaning that there were substantial problems with the voting in Ohio in the November presidential election, such as lines to vote that were so long that people left in frustration without casting their vote, thus creating doubt about the casting of Ohio's electoral votes for President George W. Bush. Following a presidential election, the U.S. Senate and House meet in a joint session and, via a roll call of the states, certify the electoral votes for each state. If a representative raises an objection to certification that is also signed by a senator, then by law the joint session is interrupted and the objection is heard by the House alone. Jones, whose objection was signed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), pointed out that ongoing lawsuits existed in Ohio regarding the alleged denial of ballots to voters, and contended that these irregularities ought to be addressed before Ohio's votes could be certified and the roll call of the electors could proceed. Progressives further argued that "there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior," (Conyers (D-MI)). Progressives offered the results of a substantial investigation to support their case, and advocated the adoption of uniform standards for U.S. federal elections. Republicans, noting that neither the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, nor the Democratic State Chairman in Ohio had raised objections to the balloting in Ohio, countered that Progressives' objection was frivolous and designed only to generate public distrust of the electoral results. The Progressives' objections were overridden by a wide margin; thus, the roll call continued, all electors were certified, and President George W. Bush was elected to his second term as President of the United States. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Ensuring Fair Elections MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Vote on Final Passage of Republican-Drafted Resolution Establishing Rules to Govern the 109th Congress. In this vote, the House agreed 220 to 195 to H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe, and changes in ethics-related provisions designed to make it easier for the committee with oversight responsibility for internal ethics questions to dismiss complaints against House members. Democrats objected to the section of the bill establishing procedures for governance by provisional quorum, arguing that this measure would unconstitutionally alter the manner in which Congress is to operate in the event of a catastrophe. They argued that this change to the rules would, in effect, be amending the Constitution because it would permit the Speaker "nearly unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living . . . . This would seem to amount to a constructive expulsion without a [constitutionally required] two-thirds vote of the whole House." ( Nadler, D-NY.) (The U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds of the House to vote to expel a member from its ranks.) In addition, Democrats objected to provisions in the Resolution which they believed would weaken House ethics standards. These objections included, first, a provision which would change the outcome of a complaint on which the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the House committee with oversight over internal ethics issues) was deadlocked from sending it to an investigator to letting the matter drop. Second, Democrats objected to a provision that would eliminate the requirement that the Committee act on complaints within 45 days, thereby letting Republicans "bury" ethics complaints in the Committee. Finally, a number of Democrats expressed concerns about the jurisdiction (areas of responsibility) of the new Committee on Homeland Security, which was gathered from the jurisdiction of several already existing committees. Republicans countered that not only was the provisional quorum provision constitutional, but the entire package of rules was tightly constructed and observed a high standard of ethics, and that the jurisdiction of the new committee was appropriately drawn. The resolution passed on a strict party-line vote. Thus, the rules under which the House will operate for the two-year duration of the 109th Congress passed as proposed by Republicans and include rules which Democrats, including Progressives, will have to follow, despite the fact that many Democrats believe some of the rules to be unconstitutional or unfair. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Vote on a Motion to Commit with Instructions (Last Effort to Amend or Kill) Republican-Drafted Resolution Establishing Rules to Govern the 109th Congress. In this vote, the House voted 196 to 219 against a motion to commit with instructions (send to committee for further consideration and/or amendment; a motion to commit with instructions is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question) H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe and changes in ethics-related provisions designed to make it easier for the committee with oversight responsibility for internal ethics questions to dismiss complaints against House members. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) offered this motion on behalf of Democrats to "prohibit Members from negotiating lucrative job deals that capitalize on their committee membership" and to "guarantee that Members have at least 3 days to read a House report [from a committee] before voting on it." The latter provision, she argued would prevent bills from being "rushed to the floor" without members having had the chance to read them, as well as guard against staff slipping "outrageous provisions" into bills at the last minute. Republicans countered that the package of rules in its entirety would uphold a very high ethics standard for the House, and in order to demonstrate their support for the package as a whole, they voted against the motion. Thus, consideration of the Resolution and the Republican-drafted rules package proceeded without the above-mentioned provisions, thus ensuring that these ethics safeguards would not be among those governing House conduct for the next two years. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Procedural Vote to End Debate, Prevent Further Amendments and Proceed to a Vote on Final Passage of Republican-Drafted Resolution Establishing Rules to Govern the 109th Congress. In this vote, the House voted 222 to 196 to order the previous question (end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed to a vote) on H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe and changes in ethics-related provisions. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued on behalf of Democrats that the Republican-drafted ethics provisions of H. Res. 5 would "destroy" the House ethics process; specifically, she condemned a change in the operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the House committee with oversight over internal ethics issues). Under previous rules, if the Committee, which is evenly divided between the parties, deadlocked on an ethics complaint, the complaint would automatically proceed to investigators. H. Res. 5 proposed to change this procedure by permitting a complaint that deadlocked the committee simply to die. In addition, H. Res. 5 proposed to eliminate the requirement that the Committee act on complaints within 45 days. Democrats argued that these changes would effectively grant the Republicans veto power over who might or might not be subject to an ethics investigation and would permit Republicans simply to ignore complaints by "running out the clock." Republicans countered that the package of rules in its entirety would uphold a very high ethics standard for the House, and that these provisions would guarantee due process (procedures to safeguard the rights of someone accused of wrongdoing) and "restore the presumption of innocence" to members against whom ethics complaints have been filed. By voting along party lines to order the previous question, the House allowed consideration of the Republican rules package to proceed with the ethics proposals intact, thereby making it easier effectively to dismiss ethics complaints. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Enforcing Congressional Ethics MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Vote on a Point of Order Asserting that Proposed Rules Governing House of Representatives Permitting a "Provisional Quorum" to Govern House of Representatives in the Event of a Catastrophe is Unconstitutional. The House voted to proceed to consideration of H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe, and changes in ethics-related provisions. In this vote, Brian Baird (D-WA) raised a point of order (interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business) against the resolution containing the proposed rules. Baird argued on behalf of Democrats that the proposed rules contained an unconstitutional provision permitting the Speaker of the House (the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives; the Speaker is always a member of the majority party), in the case of "catastrophic circumstances," to conduct House business with a quorum of House members who are physically available. This provision ran counter to the usual requirement that a quorum of House members duly elected and sworn in be present for the conduct of House business. Democrats stated that this change to the rules would, in effect, be amending the Constitution because it would permit the Speaker "nearly unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living . . . . This would seem to amount to a constructive expulsion without a [constitutionally required] two-thirds vote of the whole House." (Nadler, D-NY.) (The U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds of the House to vote to expel a member from its ranks.) Democrats further argued that the Constitution requires amendment to address the question of how to govern the country in the event of an act of mass terrorism or other catastrophe affecting Congress, but that such an amendment would need to be completed via the amendment process as set forth in the Constitution, and the Republican resolution did not follow that requirement. Republicans responded that this rule change would be constitutional because "the Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to ensure the preservation of government." The Speaker (in this context, member of Congress presiding over floor proceedings) determined that the outcome of Baird's point of order ought to be determined by a vote of the House, and the House voted 224 to 192-almost completely along party lines-to proceed to consideration of the resolution, meaning that it believed the proposed rule to be constitutional. Thus, the provision altering the manner in which the House might govern in the case of certain emergencies was retained in the rule, so that the Speaker of the House could, in the event of a "catastrophe," conduct official legislative business without the majority of 435 elected members of the House of Representatives specified in the Constitution. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5382 Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 540 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 866 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4818) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005, and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 846 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to the same day consideration of certain resolutions reported by the Rules committee |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Passage: S 2986 To amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
On Motion to Commit with Instructions: S 2986 To amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 856 Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2986) to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 518 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 845 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 2845 To reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 843 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Passage: H R 10 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 828 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 819 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5212) making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance relating to storm damage, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: S 878 To authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S 878 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 814 Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 878) to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 814 Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 878) to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Passage: H J RES 106 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5183 Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 107 Continuing Appropriations for FY 2005 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Passage: H R 3193 District of Columbia Personal Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4200 DOD Authorization, Fiscal Year 2005 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1308 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 794 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 794 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 785 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Passage: H R 2028 Pledge Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2028 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5025 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2005 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 457 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5025 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Passage: H R 4571 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4571 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4571 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3369 Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 766 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4571) to amend rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 5006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5006 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 434 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5006 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1308 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 5006 Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5006 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5006 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5006 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 754 Providing for consideration of the bill (H. R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1308 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4837 Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Passage: H R 4842 United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Passage: H R 3313 Marriage Protection Act of 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 738 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 732 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 732 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Passage: H R 3574 Stock Option Accounting Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3574 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3574 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3574 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4818 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4818 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4818 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4818 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4818 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On Passage: H R 4759 United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4418 Customs Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 712 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4759) to implement the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4766 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4766 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4766 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4766 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4766 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
A Democratic-requested vote on a motion to send the $2.7 billion fiscal year 2005 legislative appropriations branch spending bill (H.R. 4755) back to its committee of origin, with instructions that the bill impose a $25,000 limit on the amount that any single committee can spend on postage during fiscal year 2005. 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4755 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3598 Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3598 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3598 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3598 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2828 Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4754 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4754 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4754 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment 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. 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. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, Domestic HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4754 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 706 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 707 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4755, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4754 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4754 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4754 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4754 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4754 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
A vote on an amendment to help small businesses by shifting $79 million from other accounts to the Small Business Administration's guaranteed lending program, to help keep fees assessed to lenders and borrowers at current rates. 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." WAR & PEACE— General US Intervention Overseas |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4614 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4614 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4614 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 694 Providing for consideration of H. R. 4614, Energy and Water Appropriations, FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 691 Congratulating the Interim Government of Iraq on its forthcoming assumption of sovereign authority in Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Passage: H R 4663 Spending Control Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4663 Spending Control Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4663 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4663 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 692 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4663) to amend part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go through fiscal year 2009 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 692 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4663) to amend part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go through fiscal year 2009 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 685 Revising the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 as it applies in the House of Representatives |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Passage: H R 4548 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4548 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4548 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4548 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4548 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4548 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4548 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 686 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability system, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 686 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability system, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4613 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 683 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4613) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 683 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4613) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4567 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4567 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4567 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Passage: H R 4568 Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Passage: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 681 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 681 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4568 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4545 The Gasoline Price Reduction Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Passage: H R 4517 United States Refinery Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4567, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4567, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Passage: H R 4513 To provide that in preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to any action authorizing a renewable energy project, no Federal agency is required to identify alternative project locations etc... |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Passage: H R 4503 Energy Policy Act of 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4503 Energy Policy Act of 2004 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 672 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4513, Environmental Review for Renewable Energy Projects; and H.R. 4529, Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 672 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4513, Environmental Review for Renewable Energy Projects; and H.R. 4529, Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 671 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act; and H.R. 4517, United States Refinery Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 671 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act; and H.R. 4517, United States Refinery Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4323 To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide rapid acquisition authority to the Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Passage: H R 444 Back to Work Investment Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 444 Back to Work Investment Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 83 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 656 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 657 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 657 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Passage: H R 4359 Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4359 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 432 Adjournment of Both Houses of Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On Passage: H R 4200 DOD Authorization, Fiscal Year 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4200 DOD Authorization, Fiscal Year 2005 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4200 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4200 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S CON RES 95 Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4200 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4200) DOD Authorization, FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4200) DOD Authorization, FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 649 Providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 649 Providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Passage: H R 2731 Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Passage: H R 2432 Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2432 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Passage: H R 2730 Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On Passage: H R 2729 Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Passage: H R 2728 Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Motion to Table Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2660 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Appropriations FY 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 645 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730, H.R. 2731 and H.R. 2432. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Passage: H R 4281 Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to its 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 -- with instructions that the bill must not preempt state regulations regarding coverage for breast cancer, pregnancy and childbirth, and well-child OB/GYN services. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
Vote on passage of a Democratic substitute to the Republican-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 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. HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to instruct House conferees reconciling their chamber's Republican-backed budget resolution (S CON RES 95) with that of the Senate, 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. 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." FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
A vote on final passage of Bush administration-backed legislation (HR 4275), which would make permanent certain soon-to-expire income tax breaks for middle and lower income earners. 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. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
A vote on passage of a 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. 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. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
A vote on final passage of medical malpractice liability reform legislation (HR 4280) to rein in "frivolous" lawsuits by curtailing an individual's right to sue for medical-related damages. 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. HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to committee for redrafting medical malpractice legislation (HR 4280) to ensure that any monetary savings afforded to insurers from the bill's goal of reining in medical lawsuits would be passed onto health insurance policyholders 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. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
A vote on passage of Republican legislation (HR 4279) updating "flexible spending arrangements" (FSAs), which 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. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to recommit (send back to committee) Republican healthcare legislation (HR 4279), with instructions that none of the bill's tax breaks would be footed by dipping into Social Security Trust Fund monies. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Preserving Social Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
A vote on a Democratic substitute to a Republican-backed bill (HR 4279), a bill that grants further tax exemptions for employees who channel portions of their salaries into an employer-established health care fund called "flexible spending account" (FSA). 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. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Motion to Table Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2660 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Appropriations FY 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
A vote on a Republican-drafted resolution allowing for consideration of three health-care related bills (HR4279, HR4280, HR4281), including a bill that Democrats said 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. 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. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
A vote on a Republican 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), measures which Democrats labeled as an assault on the U.S. healthcare system. 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. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
A vote on a Republican 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 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
A vote on passage of a Republican-drafted resolution (H Res 627) entitled "Deploring the Abuse of Persons in United States Custody in Iraq," which Democrats say does not go far enough in terms of holding anyone accountable for such abuses. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
A vote by the full House on a Republican motion to "order the previous question" (cut off debate) on this resolution (H Res 628) condemning the harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners, but which Democrats say fails to call for accountability, including 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to instruct House members participating in a conference committee with Senate budgeters on a compromise fiscal year 2005 budget resolution (S Con Res 95) to 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. 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
A vote on final passage of the Republican Alternative Minimum Tax bill (HR 4227) to 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). 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
A vote on a Democratic substitute to the Republican-backed Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) bill (HR 4227) which would exempt individuals with gross incomes of less than $125,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000 from the AMT in 2005. 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
Vote on 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). 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
A vote on final passage by the full House of the Republican "Marriage Penalty Relief Act" (HR 4181) would permanently eliminate the so-called marriage penalty by making the standard tax deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers to the tune of $105 billion over 10 years. 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. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to its committee of origin for redrafting the White House-backed "Marriage Penalty Relief Act" (H R 4181) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to permanently extend the increased standard tax deduction for married taxpayers filing joint returns. 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. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
A House Vote on passage of a Democratic substitute to a Republican-drafted measure (HR 4181) designed to eliminate the "marriage penalty" contained in federal tax law by amending the Internal Revenue Code to permanently extend the increased standard tax deduction for married taxpayers filing joint returns. 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. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
A vote on final passage of the Republican-drafted Continuity in Representation Act (HR 2844) designed to ensure the continuity of the House of Representatives in the event of a massive disaster. 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
A vote on a Democratic amendment to the "Continuity in Representation Act (HR 2844) -- a bill 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 - striking the bill's 10-day deadline for political parties to select nominees. 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
A vote on passage of a Democratic amendment that would have altered the Republican "Continuity in Representation Act" (HR 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 -- by extending the time frame for conducting special elections from 45 to 75 days. 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
A vote on passage of a rulemaking underlying the Continuity in Representation Act (HR 2844) that allows 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. 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." MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
A Democratic-requested procedural vote related to the Republican-drafted "Continuity in Representation Act" (HR 2844) in an attempt to keep the bill from advancing on the House floor. The bill provides a statutory plan 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. 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. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
A vote on final passage of a pension reform conference report -- the culmination of House and Senate negotiations to reconcile their differing bills - which would allow the bill to pass the House and travel to President Bush's desk for his signature. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
A vote on a Democratic motion offered in protest over their inability to shape a Republican-drafted pension bill (HR 3108) and to send the measure back to its committee of origin for reconsideration. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
In a show of protest by Democrats over the Congress' lack of legislative accomplishments, Democrats requested this vote on passage of a customary resolution (H Con Res 404) offered by Republicans that would permit the House and Senate to adjourn for the chambers' two-week-long April recess. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back the Republican 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. 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." FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment to the highway funding bill (HR 3550) that would increase the number of state projects included in the federal government's calculation for determining the minimum of funding support for each state. 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. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment that would insert in the House highway bill (HR 3550) language that would permit tolls only on new voluntary-use lanes until the new lanes are paid for as opposed to letting those tolls to continue to operate in order to pay for routine road maintenance. 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. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
A vote on passage of a Republican 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 as a way of reducing fuel emissions, but which would place more wear and tear on the road. 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. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
A procedural vote to cut off Democratic debate and the possibility of hostile amendments to a Republican bill to fund federal highway and highway safety programs. 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. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
A vote on passage of a Democratic resolution (H.Res.585), which states that federal civilian employees will receive the same annual pay raise as military personnel in fiscal year 2005. 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. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
A vote on final passage of the Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act (H R 3966), a bill that affords military recruiters open access to students even as the military denies access to its ranks based on an applicant's sexual orientation. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
A vote on a procedural motion made by Republicans, to cut off Democratic debate in opposition to the Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act (H.R. 3966), a bill that would grant military recruiters the same access to students at higher learning centers as have other prospective employers, even if the learning centers in question take offense at the military's practice of discriminating against recruiting homosexuals. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Gay Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
Democrats forced a vote on a motion instructing House conferees working to reconcile their chamber's Republican-drafted fiscal year 2005 budget with that of the Senate 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. 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. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on Final Passage of the Republican Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Provide $152.6 Billion in Tax Cuts Over Five Years and Spending Increases in Social Security, Medicare, Defense Spending, and Homeland Security Protections. 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/ Vote on the Blue Dog Democrats' Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Balance the Budget by 2012 and Prevent the Passage of Additional Tax Cuts Until Congress and the President Had Taken Action to Reduce the Deficit. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Republican Study Committee's Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Provide More Tax Cuts and Domestic Spending Reductions than the Republican Leadership's 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Blue Dog Democrats' Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Balance the Budget by 2012 and Prevent the Passage of Additional Tax Cuts Until Congress and the President Had Taken Action to Reduce the Deficit. 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Congressional Black Caucus' Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Reduce Previously-Enacted Tax Cuts to Wealthy Individuals and Increase Funding for Domestic Spending Priorities such as Education and Health Care. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration 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. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
H.R. 1375. Financial Services Regulation/Vote on a Non-Binding Resolution Which Would Express the Sense of the Congress that Bank Merger Applications Should Assess the Impact of the Merger on the Communities Involved. 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
H.R. 1375. Financial Services Regulation/Vote to Prevent Commercial Banks From Charging Their Customers for Depositing Bad Checks Even if the Customer Did Not Know that the Check Would Bounce. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on Final Passage of a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq. 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. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq. 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. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq. 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. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Shield the Fast Food Industry from Lawsuits Alleging that the Consumption of Fast Food Caused Weight-Related Health Problems Among Consumers. 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. ENVIRONMENT— Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Dietary & Health Supplements Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Fast Food Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Maintain Consumers' Access to the Courts for Alleged Weight-Related Health Problems Caused by the Consumption of Fast Food Until the Underlying Legislation Became Law. 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Fast Food Industry HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/ Vote to Exclude Corporations That Sell Harmful Weight Loss Products or Dietary Supplements from the Legal Protections Contained 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Dietary & Health Supplements Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Exclude Corporations That Illegally Sell Downed Animal Meat to Humans from the Legal Protections Contained in the Underlying Bill. 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Exclude Producers and Distributors of Genetically-Modified Foods from the Legal Protections Contained in the Underlying Bill Unless They Fully Disclose the Exact Nature of Genetic Modifications Contained in Their Food. 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. ENVIRONMENT— Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Fast Food Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Preserve States' Rights to Litigate on Behalf of Consumers in Weight-Related Lawsuits Involving Alleged Violations of State Consumer Protection Laws. 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Fast Food Industry HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Preserve States' Rights to Litigate on Behalf of Consumers in Cases Involving Alleged Deception by Corporations on Issues of Obesity. 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. HEALTH CARE— Preventing Obesity JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
H.R. 1997. Fetal Protection/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Would Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Pregnant Women and Grant Fetuses Legal Rights Independent of Mothers. 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. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
H.R. 1997. Fetal Protection/Vote on Democratic Version Which Would Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Pregnant Women Without Granting Fetuses Legal Rights Independent of Mothers. 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. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
H.R. 743. Social Security Protection Act/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on the Rules Governing Debate on a Bill to Prevent Retired Public Employees in Texas and Georgia from Claiming the Retirement Benefits of a Dead Spouse. 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. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote to Extend Unemployment Benefits to Jobless Americans by Six Months. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote on Democratic Version Which Would Prevent Organizations Which Receive Taxpayer Funding to Conduct Anti-Poverty Programs from Discriminating Against Potential Employees on the Basis of Religion and Requiring Recipients of Poverty Aid to Participate in Religious Activities. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote to Prevent Organizations Which Receive Taxpayer Funding to Conduct Anti-Poverty Programs from Requiring Recipients of Poverty Aid to Participate in Religious Activities. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote to Prevent Organizations Which Receive Taxpayer Funding to Conduct Anti-Poverty Programs From Discriminating Against Potential Employees on the Basis of Religion. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Restore Conflict-of-Interest Provisions Which Would Prohibit Cozy Relationships Between Investment Banks and their Bankrupt Clients. 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote on Final Passage of Bankruptcy Reform Legislation Which Would Limit the Availability of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Protections to Consumers. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote to Recommit to Committee Bankruptcy Reform Legislation with Instructions to Strengthen Bankruptcy Protections for Active and Former U.S. Military Personnel and Their Families. 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. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote to Make Permanent Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Protections for the Nation's Family Farmers. 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. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 677 |
H. Res. 474. Disapproval of Conduct. According to many Democrats in the House, Republican leaders have relied on heavy-handed and sometimes unethical tactics to ram their legislative agenda through Congress. During the vote on House passage of prescription drug legislation, Speaker Hastert (R-IL) extended a fifteen minute roll call vote to three hours in order to persuade Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure to change their vote (had the voting ended after fifteen minutes, which is the usual time allotted for House votes, the Republican-drafted prescription drug bill would have been defeated). Of even greater concern to Democrats were allegations of bribery involving Republican leaders and their rank-and-file. According to Representative Nick Smith (R-MI), Republican leaders offered to provide financial assistance to his son's House campaign if he would change his vote and support the prescription drug bill (Nick Smith's son, Brad Smith, had declared his candidacy for his father's seat after the elder Smith announced his plans to retire). Nick Smith declined the "offer" and, according to Smith, Republican leaders then threatened to withhold all support for Brad Smith's candidacy. In the view of Progressives, the alleged offers and threats made by Republican leaders to Representative Smith constituted bribery and, in an effort to sanction Republicans who participated in the alleged wrongdoing, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) drafted a resolution which would have formally disapproved of the three-hour prescription drug vote and the alleged bribery attempt on Representative Smith. During House debate on the resolution of disapproval, Congresswoman Johnson (R-CT) motioned to table (strike down) the resolution. Progressives opposed the tabling motion because, in their view, Republican leaders had acted inappropriately by holding a three-hour vote, possibly illegally by offering a bribe to Nick Smith, and needed to be formally admonished for their actions. Conservatives supported the tabling motion, argued that the alleged bribery had not occurred, and contended that the Speaker of the House had the right to extend the fifteen minute vote on the prescription drug bill to three-hours. On a perfectly party-line vote of 214-189, the motion to table was adopted, the resolution of disapproval was struck down, and a formal complaint was not lodged against Republican leaders for their actions during the vote on prescription drug legislation. (Note: The alleged bribery attempt on Representative Smith was referred to the House Ethics Committee and formal hearings on the matter were to commence in 2004.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 676 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of an Omnibus Spending Bill to Fund the Operation of Government in 2004. In a series of four procedural votes which were held prior to this vote, Republican leaders were able to circumvent House rules and pave the way for passage of the omnibus appropriations bill on the same day that it was reported out of committee (see Roll Call Votes 672, 673, 674, and 675). Each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government. If all thirteen spending bills are not adopted by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down, a situation which occurred in 1995 when the Republican-controlled Congress and President Clinton failed to come to agreement on spending issues. Omnibus appropriations bills, which have increased in usage in recent years, bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure. Given their often enormous size and complexity, lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (witness the public outcry in 1995 after the partial government shutdown). The subject of this vote was final passage of the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, a bill which bundled seven uncompleted appropriations bills into one enormous spending package. Specifically, the omnibus bill included appropriations for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs (more than seven federal departments are listed here because some appropriations bills, such as the Transportation and Treasury Department appropriations bill, include funding for more than one department). Progressives voted against the omnibus bill and argued that the Republicans' procedural tactics on the omnibus bill were in violation of the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the omnibus legislation. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the omnibus bill and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a vote of 242-176, the 2004 omnibus spending bill was adopted and the measure was signed into law on January 23, 2004 and a partial government shutdown was narrowly avoided. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 675 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. In two previous votes-Roll Call Votes 672 and 673-House rules were waived in order to allow omnibus appropriations legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the last of four procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders secured passage of a resolution which waived that requirement and allowed a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation (see House vote 673). Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Given their enormous size and complexity, lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives opposed the rules of debate, which based a previous vote only required a simple majority for passage, and argued that the Republicans' procedural tactics on the omnibus bill were in violation of the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the omnibus. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the rules of debate and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 216-189, the rules of debate were adopted and a vote was allowed on final passage of the 2004 omnibus spending bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 674 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. In two previous votes-Roll Call Votes 672 and 673-House rules were waived in order to allow omnibus appropriations legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the third of four procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders secured passage of a resolution which waived that requirement and allowed a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation (see House vote 673). Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Given their often enormous size and complexity, lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives opposed the motion to proceed and argued that the Republicans' procedural tactics on the omnibus bill were in violation of the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the underlying omnibus bill. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a perfectly party line vote of 214-189, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus spending bill was adopted. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 673 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Enacting the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Spending Bill on the Same Day that the Rules Were Reported From the House Rules Committee. In a previous vote-Roll Call Vote 672-House rules were waived in order to allow omnibus appropriations legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the second of four procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, in an effort to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders in the House drafted a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation. Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was adoption of the resolution which would waive the two-thirds vote requirement required for same-day consideration of a rule governing debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the underlying omnibus bill. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the resolution and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 212-182, the resolution to waive the two-thirds vote requirement for same-day consideration of the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus spending bill was adopted. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 672 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Enacting the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Spending Bill on the Same Day that the Rules Were Reported From the House Rules Committee. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, in an effort to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders in the House drafted a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation. Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Lawmakers readily admit that given their enormous size and complexity, omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to the resolution which would waive the two-thirds vote requirement required for same-day consideration of a rule governing debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the underlying omnibus bill. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation as quickly as possible. On a party line vote of 211-179, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was allowed on the resolution to waive the two-thirds vote requirement for same-day consideration of the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus spending bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to End Debate on the Final Version of Prescription Drug Legislation. House debate on the final version of legislation to provide a $400 billion prescription drug benefit to the nation's seniors began on November 21, 2003 and a final vote on the bill was held shortly after midnight (in total, about one day was spent debating the monumental piece of legislation). Many Democrats were furious that the Republican leadership scheduled a final vote on passage of the 1,100 page bill in the middle of the night without providing them ample time to review and understand the contents of the legislation (lawmakers are usually provided three days to review legislation prior to House floor debate). In an effort to appease Democrats and allow them an opportunity to further debate the prescription drug bill (albeit only after the House had already adopted the bill on a 220-215 vote), Representative Thomas (R-CA) motioned to reconsider the previous vote on final passage. After several additional hours of debate on the prescription drug bill, House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) motioned to table (strike down) Thomas's motion to reconsider which, in effect, had allowed debate to continue after the final vote had been held. Progressives voted against Delay's motion to table Thomas's motion and argued that debate on the prescription drug bill should continue until all lawmakers had an opportunity to read, comprehend, and discuss the merits of the legislation. Conservatives voted in favor of Delay's motion to table and argued that the House needed to proceed to other important pieces of legislation-especially appropriations legislation-which had yet to be completed. On a vote of 210-193, the Delay motion was adopted and debate on the prescription drug bill was subsequently ended. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 669 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation. The subject of this vote was final passage of the Republican-crafted prescription drug bill. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the measure was brought to a final vote. Progressives opposed final passage of the prescription drug conference report for two main reasons. First, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Second, Progressives opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives voted in favor of final passage and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a close vote of 220-215, the prescription drug conference report was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on December 8, 2003. (Note: The original cost estimate of the prescription drug bill by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-the budget arm of the White House-was $395 billion. Several weeks after final passage, however, the OMB revised its cost estimate upward to $534 billion which prompted allegations that the Bush Administration purposely underestimated the cost of the bill in order to attract support for the measure among fiscal conservatives. At the time of this vote, however, lawmakers were operating under the assumption that the true cost of the measure was $395 billion.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 668 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation With Instructions that the Measure Be Amended to Allow the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada. The subject of this vote-a motion to recommit-was the fifth and final procedural vote prior to the vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. One of the few procedural rights of the minority party in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a bill to committee and is usually accompanied with instructions to amend the legislation in a specific fashion. On this vote, Representative Turner (D-TX) motioned to recommit the conference report on prescription drug legislation to committee with instructions that the legislation be amended to allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations which are undertaken by House and Senate lawmakers after each legislative body completes action on its respective version of a piece of legislation). Progressives voted in support of the motion to recommit and argued that the underlying conference report failed to address the rising costs of prescription drugs. A common-sense approach to lower drug prices, Progressives argued, was to allow citizens and health providers in the U.S. to purchase prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies. Canadian drugs, Progressives noted, are identical to those sold in the U.S. but are sold in Canada at significantly reduced prices. Progressives characterized the price differential between prescription drugs sold in the U.S. and Canada as price gouging on the part of U.S. pharmaceutical companies and attributed the differences in prices to the enormous lobbying power of the pharmaceutical industry on Capitol Hill. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit based on their concerns that Canadian prescription drugs might be unsafe. Canada, Conservatives argued, does not test the purity and quality of prescription drugs as rigorously as does the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. On a party-line vote of 211-222, the motion to recommit was defeated and the conference report on prescription drug legislation was allowed to proceed to a final vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 667 |
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Prevent Credit Card Companies from Raising Interest Rates on Cardholders Who Pay Their Bills on Time. In 1996, Congress adopted legislation known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. That Act, among other things, imposed federal regulations on the credit reporting industry and mandated uniform credit reporting standards across states. Provisions in the 1996 Act-specifically those which mandated uniform credit reporting standards across states-were due to expire on January 1, 2004. The subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and adopt a conference report on legislation to extend the 1996 law into the future (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations which are undertaken by House and Senate lawmakers after each legislative body completes action on its respective version of a piece of legislation). The suspension procedure, which is generally used to pass non-controversial measures, limits the time available for debate, bars amendments, and requires a two-thirds majority vote in favor of passage of the legislation. Conservatives, as well as a significant number of Democrats, voted to suspend House rules and adopt the conference report on the credit reporting bill because, in their view, the conference report would expand consumer access to credit, strengthen protections against credit card and identity theft, streamline credit reporting systems, and provide consumers with free access to their credit reports. Progressives voted against the motion to suspend House rules based on their concerns with the underlying conference report. Specifically, Progressives opposed provisions in the conference report which would allow credit card companies to increase the interest rates on individuals' credit cards if: 1) the cardholder makes a late payment on another credit card or a student loan; 2) the cardholder's credit score is lowered; 3) or the cardholder obtains a new mortgage or loan to pay for a house, car, or medical emergency. In the view of Progressives, credit activity which is not directly related to an individual's payments on his or her credit card should not be used by credit card companies-the big three being Chase Manhattan, Citigroup, and Bank One-to increase interest rates. Progressives, however, were outnumbered and, on a vote of 379-49, the motion to suspend House rules was adopted, the conference report was passed, and President Bush signed the measure into law on December 4, 2003. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 666 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation. This vote was the fourth of five procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the conference report was reintroduced into the House and Senate for final passage. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules of debate governing House consideration of the prescription drug conference report (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the guidelines for debate). Progressives voted against the rules of debate based on their opposition to the conference report. Specifically, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Progressives also opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives supported the rules of debate and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a party-line vote of 225-205, the rules of debate governing consideration of the prescription drug conference report were adopted. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 665 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation. In a previous vote-Roll Call Vote 662-House rules were waived in order to allow prescription drug legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the third of five procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the conference report was reintroduced into the House and Senate for final passage. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate governing House consideration of the prescription drug conference report (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the guidelines for debate). Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their opposition to the conference report. Specifically, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Progressives also opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives supported the motion to proceed and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a perfectly party-line vote of 224-203, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was allowed on the rules of debate governing consideration of the prescription drug conference report. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 662 |
H Res. 458. Fiscal 2004 Appropriations/Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Same-Day Consideration of Any Rule Completed on November 21, 2003 Which Related to an Appropriations Bill. Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Moreover, according to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was reported from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. (The two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate.) In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans offered a resolution which would waive the two-thirds majority requirement on any rule brought to the floor on November 21, 2003 which related to appropriations legislation. Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives argued that holding House floor debate on the same day that the appropriations legislation was reported from the House Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the legislation and understand its contents (lawmakers are normally provided three days to examine a completed piece of legislation before it is considered on the House floor). Conservatives supported the resolution and argued that the end of the congressional session in two weeks justified their efforts to expedite action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 224-203, the resolution to allow a simple majority vote in favor of a same-day rule governing debate on appropriations legislation was adopted. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 661 |
H Res. 458. Fiscal 2004 Appropriations/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Same-Day Consideration of Any Rule Completed on November 21, 2003 Which Related to an Appropriations Bill. Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Moreover, according to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was reported from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. (The two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate.) In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans offered a resolution which would waive the two-thirds majority requirement on any rule brought to the floor on November 21, 2003 which related to appropriations legislation. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed on the resolution to allow same-day consideration of appropriations legislation. Progressives opposed motion to proceed because, in their view, the underlying resolution was yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives argued that holding House floor debate on the same day that the appropriations legislation was reported from the House Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the legislation and understand its contents (lawmakers are normally provided three days to examine a completed piece of legislation before it is considered on the House floor). Conservatives supported the motion and argued that the end of the congressional session in two weeks justified their efforts to expedite action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 225-202, the motion to proceed to a vote on the same-day waiver was adopted and the resolution which would waive the two-thirds vote requirement was allowed to proceed to a final vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 660 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Same-Day Consideration of a Rule Governing Debate on the Prescription Drug Conference Report. This vote was the second in a series of five procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Additionally, according to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was reported from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. (The two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate.) In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule governing debate on the prescription drug conference report, Republicans proposed a resolution which would waive the two-thirds majority requirement as required under normal House practices and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority. Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the 1,100 page prescription drug conference report on the same day that it was reported from conference committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the document and understand its contents (lawmakers are normally provided three days to examine a completed piece of legislation before it is considered on the House floor). Conservatives supported the same-day rule and argued that the end of the congressional session in two weeks justified their efforts to complete action on the prescription drug conference report. On a party line vote of 228-200, the resolution to allow a simple majority vote in favor of the same-day rule governing debate on the prescription drug conference report was adopted. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 659 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow the Consideration of a Rule Governing Debate on the Prescription Drug Conference Report. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the conference report was reintroduced into the House and Senate for final passage. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate governing House consideration of the prescription drug conference report (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the guidelines for debate). Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their opposition to the conference report. Specifically, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Progressives also opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives supported the motion to proceed and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a perfectly party-line vote of 225-202, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was allowed on the rules of debate governing consideration of the prescription drug conference report. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
H R 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report Which Would Expedite Forest Thinning Projects on Twenty Million Acres of Federal Forestland. In response to the outbreak of wildfires in California and elsewhere, the Bush Administration drafted so-called "Healthy Forests" legislation to promote "forest thinning" projects (i.e. timber extraction) in forests near populated areas. Conservatives argued that forest thinning projects were needed to mitigate the damages caused by wildfires. Progressives, however, were more skeptical; in their view, the administration's real goal in drafting the "Healthy Forests" initiative was to enable the timber industry greater access to forested areas. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on forest thinning legislation which would expedite environmental and judicial reviews of forest thinning projects on twenty million acres of federal forestland to allow more thinning projects to be undertaken. (After the House and Senate completed action earlier in the year on their respective versions of a forest thinning bill, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The product of conference committee negotiations is a conference report-the final version of the bill which is the subject of this vote.) Progressives voted in opposition to the forest thinning conference report based on their concerns that provisions in the bill could be interpreted broadly for purposes of increasing timber extraction on federal forestland. Specifically, Progressives argued that the language included in the conference report could be used to justify logging activities in old growth forests. Conservatives argued that provisions were included in the conference report, such as a public review and comment process, to protect old growth forests. On a vote of 286-140, the forest thinning conference report was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on December 3, 2003. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 650 |
H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Sixth and Final Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. In an effort to contain prescription drug costs, legislation was adopted by the House and Senate earlier in the congressional session which would provide federal subsidies to HMOs and other private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). After the House and Senate completed action on their prescription drug bills, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. (Note: The House and Senate versions were not limited to prescription drug coverage. Both versions included provisions which would alter-and in the view of Progressives fundamentally undermine-the Medicare program.) In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Hooley (D-OR) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will reduce health care costs and provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. On a party line vote of 201-222, Hooley's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to delete the provisions from the conference report which would allow private insurers to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 615, 619, and 637.) hey AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 649 |
H R 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report Which Would Authorize Federal Funding for Intelligence Activities in 2004. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on the intelligence authorization bill which would authorize an estimated $40 billion in 2004 for fourteen U.S. intelligence agencies including the CIA, FBI, and NSC (a conference report, the final version of a piece of legislation, is hashed out in conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate after each legislative body completed action on the measure). The exact amount provided in the conference report to intelligence agencies generally and intelligence related activities specifically is classified. The major issue which arose during debate on the conference report involved a provision which would expand the FBI's search powers in terrorism-related cases. Under the original 1978 law governing FBI searches, the FBI is allowed to examine an individual's financial records from banks, credit unions, and other traditional financial institutions without a court order. The provision included in the intelligence authorization would expand the FBI's search powers to include financial records from car dealerships, pawn shops, casinos, and travel agencies as well as banks and credit unions. Progressives opposed expanding the FBI's search powers and argued that the new powers could be used to violate individuals' civil liberties. Perhaps the most concise statement in opposition to the search provision came from Representative Otter, a Republican from Idaho: "With this legislation we eliminate the judicial oversight that was built into our system for a reason-to make sure our precious liberties are protected." Other Conservatives disagreed with Otter's assessment and argued that the expanded search powers stuck an appropriate balance between the intelligence gathering needs of the FBI and the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. On a vote of 264-163, the conference report on the intelligence authorization bill was adopted and the measure was signed into law by President Bush on December 13, 2003. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 637 |
H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Fifth of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. In an effort to contain prescription drug costs, legislation was adopted by the House and Senate earlier in the congressional session which would provide federal subsidies to HMO's and other private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). After the House and Senate completed action on their prescription drug bills, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. (Note: The House and Senate versions were not limited to prescription drug coverage. Both versions included provisions which would alter-and in the view of Progressives fundamentally undermine-the Medicare program.) In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Berkley (D-NV) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will reduce health care costs and provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. On a party line vote of 203-218, Berkley's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to delete the provisions from the conference report which would allow private insurers to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 615, 619, and 650.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote on Final Passage of an Energy Conference Report to Overhaul the Nation's Energy Policies. Overhauling the nation's energy policies has been a key domestic priority for the Bush Administration. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S. including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition to the energy bill among environmentally-minded lawmakers. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from their energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states in this country (ethanol, a gasoline additive, is generally made from corn). The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations and is the final version of a piece of legislation when each house of Congress has passed a different initial version of a bill). The subject of this vote was final passage of the energy conference report which would, among other things, authorize $25.7 billion in energy-related tax breaks over the next ten years, authorize $18 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, shield the makers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from liability for environmental damage caused by the gasoline additive, and impose reliability standards for electricity transmission networks. Progressives voted against final passage of the energy conference report for two main reasons. First, Progressives opposed the provisions in the bill which would shield MTBE producers from paying any of the costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater, has been linked to cancer, and that a liability waiver to MTBE producers would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Second, Progressives objected to what they characterized as overly-generous subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry which was contained in the legislation. The estimated $14.1 billion in public subsides for oil and gas producers, Progressives argued, would be better spent on developing renewable and pollution-free energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted in favor of the energy conference report. In their view, encouraging the domestic production of oil and natural gas was important to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Additionally, they argued, the bill would take important steps toward modernizing the nation's energy infrastructure. On a vote of 246-180, the energy conference report was adopted by the House. The energy conference report, however, did not pass the Senate by the end of the 2003 congressional session and the measure did not become law. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 629 |
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing House Consideration of the Energy Conference Report. A key domestic priority for the Bush Administration has been to overhaul the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S. including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition to the energy bill among environmentally-minded lawmakers. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from its energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states (ethanol, a gasoline additive, is made from corn). The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations and is the final version of a piece of legislation when each house of Congress has passed a different initial version of a bill). On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules governing debate on the energy conference report (before legislation can be debated on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which functions in essence as an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). Progressives opposed the rules of debate based on their two main concerns with the underlying conference report. First, Progressives objected to a provision included in the conference report which would legally shield producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from any costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater, has been linked to cancer, and that a liability waiver to MTBE producers would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Second, Progressives opposed what they characterized as overly-generous subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry contained in the legislation. The estimated $14.1 billion in public subsides for oil and gas producers, Progressives argued, would be better spent on developing renewable and pollution-free energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their support for the energy conference report. In their view, increasing the domestic production of oil and natural gas was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Additionally, they argued, the bill makes important steps toward modernizing the nation's energy infrastructure. On a vote of 248-167, the rules of debate were adopted and the energy conference report was allowed to proceed to a final vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Allow the Consideration of the Rules of Debate on the Energy Conference Report. A key domestic priority for the Bush Administration has been to overhaul the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S.-including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)-and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition among environmentally-minded lawmakers to the energy bill. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provision from their energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states (ethanol, a gasoline additive, is made from corn). The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations and is the final version of a piece of legislation). The subject of this vote was a motion to allow consideration of a rule governing debate on the energy conference report (before legislation can be debated on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which functions in essence as an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). Progressives opposed the motion to proceed based on their two main concerns with the underlying conference report. First, Progressives objected to a provision included in the conference report which would legally shield producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from any costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater, has been linked to cancer, and that a liability waiver to MTBE producers would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Second, Progressives opposed what they characterized as overly-generous subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry contained in the legislation. The estimated $14.1 billion in public subsides for oil and gas producers, Progressives argued, would be better spent on developing renewable and pollution-free energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted in support of the motion to proceed based on their support for the energy conference report. In their view, increasing the domestic production of oil and natural gas was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Additionally, they argued, the bill makes important steps toward modernizing the nation's energy infrastructure. On a party line vote of 225-193, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate was adopted. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 624 |
H R 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include Provisions in the Omnibus Conference Report Which Would Allow the Importation of Less-Expensive Canadian Prescription Drugs Into the United States. Each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign thirteen appropriations bills to finance the operation of government for the upcoming year. If the thirteen spending bills cannot be completed on time, then the government-specifically those areas of government that Congress has failed to appropriate money for-shuts down. (A partial government shutdown occurred in 1995 when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich failed to reach a compromise on spending issues.) In an effort to expedite passage of the required appropriations legislation and prevent a government shutdown, Republican leaders bundled five uncompleted spending bills into an "omnibus" appropriations bill. Republican leaders were then able to secure passage of the omnibus bill in both the House and Senate and the two versions of the omnibus bill were sent to a conference committee to reconcile differences between the two forms of the bill. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congressman Obey (D-WI) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to include provisions in the House omnibus bill which would allow individuals and health providers in the U.S. to import prescription drugs from Canada. Progressives supported Obey's motion as a way to allow individuals in the U.S. to take advantage of cheaper prescription drug prices in Canada. Many if not most prescription drugs, Progressives noted, are sold in Canada at significantly reduced prices in comparison to the prices of identical drugs that are sold in the United States. Progressives argued that the differences in prices between U.S. and Canadian prescription drugs-which they characterized as price gouging on the part of U.S. pharmaceutical companies-can be attributed to the powerful influence of the pharmaceutical industry on Capitol Hill. Conservatives voted in opposition to Obey's motion as a way to protect citizens in the U.S. from the alleged potential hazards of prescription drugs from Canada. Canadian drugs, Conservatives argued, are not inspected for quality and purity as thoroughly as are U.S. drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Obey motion attracted strong support among Democrats and, with the help of seventy-four Republicans, the motion was adopted 237-176 and House conferees were instructed to include language in the omnibus conference report which would allow citizens and health providers in the U.S. to import and sell Canadian prescription drugs in the U.S. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 619 |
H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Fourth of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. In an effort to contain prescription drug costs, legislation was adopted by the House and Senate earlier in the congressional session which would provide federal subsidies to HMO's and other private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). After the House and Senate completed action on their prescription drug bills, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. (Note: The House and Senate versions were not limited to prescription drug coverage. Both versions included provisions which would alter-and in the view of Progressives fundamentally undermine-the Medicare program.) In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Cardoza (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 184-207, Cardoza's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to delete the provisions from the conference report which would allow private insurers to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 615, 637, and 650.) hey AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 618 |
HR 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Any Provisions in the Energy Conference Report Which Would Weaken Clean Water Standards. A key domestic priority for the Bush Administration has been to overhaul the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S. including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition among environmentally-minded lawmakers. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from its energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states. The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation (the product of conference committee negotiations is a conference report, the final version of a piece of legislation when the two houses of Congress pass different versions). In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Filner (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to drop any provisions from the conference report that would weaken clean water standards. Progressives supported the motion to instruct based on their concerns about a provision debated in conference committee to legally shield producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from any costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater and has been linked to cancer. A liability waiver for MTBE producers, Progressives argued, would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Conservatives did not specifically address the concerns raised by Progressives over the MTBE liability provision during debate on the motion to instruct but argued that the motion, if passed, would result in less domestic energy production, higher natural gas prices, and the loss of manufacturing jobs. On a vote of 188-210, the Filner motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the MTBE liability provisions from the energy conference report. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 617 |
H R 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote on Final Passage of a $401.5 Billion Conference Report Which Would Authorize Federal Spending on Defense-Related Programs in 2004. The subject of this vote was final passage of a $401.5 billion conference report on the 2004 defense authorization bill (a conference report, which is hashed out in a conference committee, is the final version of a piece of legislation). Progressives voted against final passage based on three concerns they had with the legislation. First, Progressives opposed provisions in the bill which failed to extend full retirement and disability benefits to all of the nation's veterans (as written, the conference report would extend those benefits to some, but not all, U.S. veterans who were wounded in battle while defending the United States). Second, Progressives objected to funding which was included in the conference report to develop new "low-yield" nuclear weapons systems (in contrast to "high-yield" nuclear weapons such as the hydrogen bomb, low-yield weapons would have limited explosive capabilities and could be used to eradicate concentrated targets). Progressives were worried that the development of low-yield nuclear weapons would undermine efforts to ban and dismantle all nuclear weapons. Third, based on their support for protecting endangered species, Progressives voiced opposition to provisions in the conference report which would exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Conservatives voted in support of the conference report and, in response to the charges levied by Progressives, argued that the conference report would expand retirement and disability benefits for veterans, would improve, through the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, the ability of the U.S. military to attack terrorists hiding underground (which was the stated purpose of low-yield nuclear weapons), and would allow the Defense Department to conduct weapons testing without the constraints of environmental laws and thereby improve the effectiveness of the military. On an overwhelming 362-40 vote, the conference report on the defense authorization bill was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on November 24, 2003. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
H R 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report Which Failed to Extend Full Retirement and Disability Benefits to U.S. Veterans Who Were Wounded in Battle. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and Senate adopted legislation to authorize federal spending on defense. Because differences existed between the House and Senate versions of the bill, a conference committee was convened to reconcile those differences in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the final version of a piece of legislation). The subject of this vote was a motion offered by Representative Marshall (D-GA) to recommit to committee the conference report on the defense authorization bill with instructions that it be amended to allow all U.S. veterans to immediately receive full disability and retirement benefits simultaneously. Progressives supported the motion to recommit because, in their view, the conference report version of the legislation short-changed disabled veterans. That conference report version, Progressives argued, failed to provide disabled veterans with both retirement and disability benefits simultaneously; instead, disabled veterans could only collect either retirement or disability benefits, but not both at the same time. Progressives also expressed dismay that the Bush Administration could provide tax relief to the wealthiest Americans but fail to provide full disability and retirement benefits to those individuals who were wounded in battle while defending the United States. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit and argued that the conference report already went a long way toward expanding disability benefits to those wounded veterans who previously received no disability benefits whatsoever. On a vote of 188-217, the motion to recommit was defeated and the conference report on the defense authorization bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Third of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Consequently, proposals to expand prescription drug coverage have been a fixture on the congressional agenda in recent years; Republicans have generally favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide drug coverage, while Democrats have advocated for drug coverage through the Medicare program. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed action on a proposal which would provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). Essentially, the plan would use HMO's and other private insurance companies as a third-party contractor to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). On this vote, Representative Capps (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 197-209, the motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the free-market provisions contained in the House bill when drafting the final version of the legislation in conference committee. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 619, 637, and 650.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 614 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, and 572.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Becerra (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Becerra's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Becerra's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was defeated on a party-line vote of 197-207. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
H R 1829. Federal Prison Industry/Vote to Make Temporary the Preferential Treatment To Prison-Produced Goods. Many federal inmates have the option of earning $1.50 an hour for their work in producing goods in prison factories which range from office furniture to military equipment. To maintain the demand for goods produced by federal inmates, government agencies are required by law to make concerted attempts to purchase prison-produced goods before shopping elsewhere. With the economic downturn, however, lawmakers have re-examined the so-called mandatory source requirement-a sixty-nine year old requirement which states that preference be given to prison-produced goods-in order to provide a greater share of government contracts to local merchants. During debate on a bill to eliminate the mandatory source requirement, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX) proposed an amendment which would have added a sunset provision to the underlying legislation in order to make the bill expire after three years. Progressives supported Jackson-Lee's amendment because, in their view, the mandatory source requirement should not be permanently changed. Progressives contended that the production of goods by inmates in prison provides those individuals with valuable job skills that can be used to find employment once they are released. Conservatives opposed the amendment and argued that the government should purchase the goods it needs from law-abiding local merchants rather than from federal inmates. On a vote of 100-313, Jackson-Lee's amendment was struck down and a three-year sunset provision was not included in the underlying legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— People in Jails and Prisons |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 604 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2443 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 601 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Final Passage of a $87.5 Billion Conference Report for Supplemental Spending on Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on the Bush Administration's $87.5 billion supplemental spending request to Congress-the largest supplemental request in U.S. history-for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental spending package included $18.6 billion in grants for Iraq's reconstruction, $1.2 billion in grants for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and $65.8 billion for military operations, weapons procurement, and military construction projects in those two countries. Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on their support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and the need to provide funding for those operations as quickly as possible. Progressives opposed the legislation on a number of grounds. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. Despite these objections by Progressives, the conference report on the supplemental spending bill was adopted on a vote of 298-121 and the measure was signed into law by President Bush on November 6, 2003. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Recommit to Committee a $87.5 Billion Conference Report for Supplemental Spending on Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan One of the few procedural prerogatives available to minority party members in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a bill to committee and is usually accompanied by instructions to amend the legislation in a particular fashion. On this vote, Congressman Obey (D-WI) motioned to recommit to committee the conference report on President Bush's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for expenditures associated with military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. (If the House and Senate adopt legislation in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill; a conference report is the product of those negotiations.) Obey's motion included committee instructions to transform half of Iraq's reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan (unlike a grant, the recipient of a loan must repay the money). Progressives voted in support of Obey's motion because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. On a vote of 198-221, Obey's motion was rejected and the conference report on the $87 supplemental spending bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Second of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Consequently, proposals to expand prescription drug coverage have been a fixture on the congressional agenda in recent years; Republicans have generally favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide drug coverage, while Democrats have advocated for drug coverage through the Medicare program. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed action on a proposal which would provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). Essentially, the plan would use HMOs and other private insurance companies as a third-party contractor to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). On this vote, Representative Davis (D-FL) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 195-217, the motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the free-market provisions contained in the House bill when drafting the final version of the legislation in conference committee. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 615, 619, 637, and 650.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
H.R 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Any Provisions in the Energy Conference Report Which Would Weaken Clean Air Standards. One of President Bush's major domestic priorities has been to reform the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy which would, among other things, encourage the domestic production of oil by creating new tax breaks for oil producers. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the policy included language, which Democrats opposed, to open Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a pristine area of wilderness along Alaska's coast, to oil drilling operations. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from its energy plan and the House and Senate subsequently adopted the proposal, albeit in different forms, earlier in the congressional session. To reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation, a conference committee was convened to produce a final legislative product (a conference report). In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congresswoman Johnson (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to drop any provisions from the conference report that would weaken the Clean Air Act's anti-smog requirements. Progressives supported Johnson's motion because, in their view, the Clean Air Act should not be modified in order to grant oil producers more leeway in generating air pollution. In the view of Progressives, a more responsible approach to alleviate the nation's demand for oil was to promote the research and development of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct because, in their view, expanding domestic oil operations was necessary to promote economic growth and reduce the dependence of the U.S. on Middle Eastern oil. On a vote of 182-232, the Johnson motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop provisions in the energy conference report which would weaken clean air regulations. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration on an $87.5 Billion Conference Report for Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the House and Senate had completed action on the Bush Administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for military and reconstruction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan-the single largest supplemental spending request ever presented to Congress-a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two versions of the legislation. But, before the conference report could be reintroduced in the House for final passage, Republican leaders needed to pass a rule governing debate on the measure (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). Democrats (including Progressives) voted against the rules of debate, the subject of this vote, based on their several concerns with the underlying legislation. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. But, despite the objections raised by Progressives, the rules of debate for the supplemental spending bill were adopted on a party-line vote of 217-197. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report to Provide Funding for the Interior Department and Related Agencies. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on the Interior Department spending bill which would provide $19.7 billion for the Interior Department and $400 million to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for costs associated with fighting wildfires (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives voted against final passage for three reasons. Their first objection involved the inclusion of an administration-favored rule which would expand road building, logging, and mining operations in federal forestland, specifically (but not limited to) Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests. In the view of Progressives, expanding commercial operations in federal forestland would jeopardize the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas. Progressives' second objection involved funding cuts for the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). In the view of Progressives, federal funding for the arts and humanities is socially and economically beneficial. According to Representative Slaughter (D-NY), the $232 million invested by the federal government in the NEA and NEH in 2003 had an economic impact of $132 billion and produced billions of tax revenues on the federal, state, and local levels of government. Additionally, continued Slaughter, every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates seven dollars for NEA by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales. The third objection involved provisions in the conference report which failed to resolve a dispute between Native Americans and the Interior Department. Since 1885, the Interior Department has managed an account owned by Native Americans which contained money paid to tribes by the federal government for the commercial use of Native American land. According to Progressives, this account had been terribly mismanaged by Interior and legislative action was needed to compensate Native Americans for the federal government's mishandling of the account. Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on what they characterized as the virtues of the legislation such as funding increases for the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Refuges, the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. On a vote of 216-205, the conference report which would expand logging and mining operations in federal forestland was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on November 10, 2003. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 594 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report to Fund the Interior Department and Related Agencies. One of the few procedural prerogatives available to minority party members in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits the legislation to committee and is usually accompanied by instructions to amend the bill in a particular fashion (in this case, no instructions were included). The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee the conference report on the Interior Department spending bill (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit based on their several objections to the conference report. The first objection involved the inclusion of an administration-favored rule which would expand road building, logging, and mining operations in federal forestland, specifically (but not limited to) Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests. In the view of Progressives, expanding commercial operations in federal forestland would jeopardize the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas. The second objection involved funding cuts for the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). In the view of Progressives, federal funding for the arts and humanities is socially and economically beneficial. According to Representative Slaughter (D-NY), the $232 million invested by the federal government in the NEA and NEH in 2003 had an economic impact of $132 billion and produced billions of tax revenues on the federal, state, and local levels of government. Additionally, continued Slaughter, every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates seven dollars for NEA by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales. The third objection involved provisions in the conference report which failed to resolve a dispute between Native Americans and the Interior Department. Since 1885, the Interior Department has managed an account owned by Native Americans which contained money paid to tribes by the federal government for the commercial use of Native American land. According to Progressives, this account had been terribly mismanaged by Interior and legislative action was needed to compensate Native Americans for the federal government's mishandling of the account. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit based on what they characterized as the virtues of the legislation such as funding increases for the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Refuges, the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. On a vote of 190-229, the motion to recommit was defeated and the Interior Department conference report-which would expand logging and mining operations in federal forestland-was allowed to proceed to a final vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 592 |
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Reauthorize Funding for the Federal Aviation Administration The subject of this vote was final passage of legislation which would reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The major issue which shaped the debate on the FAA reauthorization bill involved the Bush Administration's effort to privatize air traffic control operations at the nation's airports. In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, House and Senate Democrats were able to amend the original bill in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the conference report would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. Democrats complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Conservatives voted in favor of final passage as a way to encourage job growth. In their view, provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy by expanding air service operations-and the demand for jobs in the aviation industry-around the country. On a close vote of 211-207 the FAA reauthorization conference report was adopted, effectively allowing the privatization of air traffic control operations to proceed. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 591 |
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report Which Would Reauthorize Funding for the Federal Aviation Administration. In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During the House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats were able to amend both pieces of legislation in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the conference report would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. Democrats complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). On this vote, Democrats sought to recommit the conference report to committee based on their opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations (if successful, the motion to recommit is usually a deathblow to a piece of legislation). Conservatives voted against the motion to recommit based on their support for the FAA reauthorization bill. In their view, provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy by expanding air service operations-and the demand for jobs in the aviation industry-around the country. On a perfectly party-line vote of 196-219, the motion to recommit was defeated and the FAA reauthorization conference report was brought to a final vote. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote on Rules of Debate Governing House Consideration of the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report. In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During the House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats were able to amend both pieces of legislation in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the final bill would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules of debate governing House consideration of the FAA reauthorization conference report. Democrats voted against the rules of debate based on their objections to privatizing air traffic operations. Democrats also complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Based on their support for the underlying legislation, Conservatives voted in favor of the rules of debate as a way to encourage job growth. In their view, provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy by expanding air service operations-and the demand for jobs in the aviation industry-around the country. On a party-line vote of 220-199, the rules of debate were adopted and the FAA conference report was provided House floor consideration. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report. In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During the House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats were able to amend both pieces of legislation in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the final bill would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to House consideration of the rules of debate on the FAA reauthorization conference report. Democrats voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to privatizing air traffic operations. Democrats also complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their support for the underlying legislation. In their view, the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy. On a perfectly party-line vote of 222-199, the motion to proceed was adopted and the FAA conference report allowing the privatization of air traffic control operations was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 580 |
Procedural Motion to Adjourn the Congressional Session In Response to What Democrats Characterized as Heavy Handed Tactics by the Republican Leadership. According to many Democrats in the House, Republican leaders have relied on heavy-handed and sometimes unethical tactics to ram their legislative agenda through Congress. To illustrate their claim, Democrats noted that Speaker Hastert (R-IL) had extended a fifteen minute roll call vote on final passage of a prescription drug bill to three hours in order to persuade Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure to change their vote (had the voting ended after fifteen minutes, which is the usual time allotted for House votes, the Republican-drafted prescription drug bill would have been defeated). Of even greater concern to Democrats were allegations of bribery involving Republican leaders and their rank-and-file. According to Representative Nick Smith (R-MI), Republican leaders offered to provide financial assistance to his son's House campaign if he would change his vote and support the prescription drug bill (Nick Smith's son, Brad Smith, had declared his candidacy for his father's seat after the elder Smith announced his plans to retire). Nick Smith declined the "offer" and, according to Smith, Republican leaders then threatened to withhold all support for Brad Smith's candidacy. More recently, Democrats charged Republican leaders with purposely circumventing congressional rules during conference committee negotiations on a bill to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA bill, the major issue involved a proposal to privatize air traffic control operations at the nation's airports (see House vote 592 for a more detailed description of the debate on that issue). Democrats opposed privatization and, with the help of a handful of House and Senate Republicans, were able to secure passage of amendments to both the House and Senate versions of the bill to ban the privatization of air traffic control operations. The two versions of the bill were then sent to a conference committee where conferees were commissioned to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. However, when the final version of the legislation emerged from conference, the privatization ban on air traffic control operations-a ban contained in both the House and Senate versions of the bill-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the final bill would effectively allow the privatization of air traffic control operations despite the fact that both the House and Senate versions of the bill had banned privatization (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Representative Mica (R-FL), a conservative member of the conference committee, defended the exclusion of the privatization ban from the conference report: "We know after months of conflict that the issue [of privatization] was tearing us apart. Now we've taken that out." Progressives, however, were angered over what they viewed as a circumvention of congressional rules and, in response, made six attempts on October 30 to adjourn the congressional session. The subject of this vote was the first attempt to adjourn the congressional session, a motion made by Representative McGovern (D-MA). On a vote of 86-317, the motion to adjourn was defeated and the House was not closed down in response to what Democrats characterized as heavy-handed tactics by the Republican leadership. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 575 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate for a Conference Report Which Would Set Spending Priorities for the Department of the Interior and Related Programs. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule governing debate on the measure must be adopted. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, in effect an arm of the majority party leadership. The subject of this vote was a rule that would provide for consideration of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $19.7 billion for the Department of the Interior and related programs and $400 million in emergency fire-fighting funds (if legislation passes the House and Senate in difference forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions; a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations). Progressives voted against the rule based on their several objections to the conference report itself. The first objection involved the inclusion of an administration-favored rule which would expand road building, logging, and mining operations in federal forestland, specifically (but not limited to) Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests. In the view of Progressives, expanding commercial operations in federal forestland would jeopardize the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas. The second objection involved funding cuts for the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). In the view of Progressives, federal funding for the arts and humanities is socially and economically beneficial. According to Representative Slaughter (D-NY), the $232 million invested by the federal government in the NEA and NEH in 2003 had an economic impact of $132 billion and produced billions of tax revenues on the federal, state, and local levels of government. Additionally, continued Slaughter, every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates seven dollars for NEA by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales. The third objection dealt with provisions in the conference report which failed to resolve a dispute between Native Americans and the Interior Department. Since 1885, the Interior Department has managed an account owned by Native Americans which contained money paid to tribes by the federal government for the commercial use of Native American land. According to Progressives, this account had been terribly mismanaged by Interior and legislative action was needed to compensate Native Americans for the federal government's mishandling of the account. Conservatives supported the rules of debate based on what they characterized as the virtues of the legislation such as funding increases for the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Refuges, the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. On a vote of 289-136, the rules of debate for the Interior Department conference report were adopted and the legislation was allowed to proceed to consideration on the House floor. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
H.J. Res. 75. Fiscal 2004 Continuing Appropriation/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Continuing Appropriation to Fund Government at 2003 Levels Through November 7, 2003. Each congressional session, Congress must pass and the president must sign thirteen appropriations bills to finance the operation of government for the upcoming year. If Congress is unable to complete its work on time, a continuing appropriation (or CR, for continuing resolution) is needed to continuing financing government operations (CR's usually extend the previous years appropriation by one or more weeks). If a CR cannot be adopted before the fiscal year expires on October 1st, then the government-specifically those areas of government that Congress has failed to appropriate money for-shuts down. (A partial government shutdown occurred in 1995 when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich failed to reach a compromise on spending issues.) The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation which would fund government operations into the 2004 fiscal year (which confusingly began on October 1, 2003) at the previous year's levels. Conservatives supported their party leadership on the CR as a way to "buy time" to complete all thirteen appropriations bills; more time was needed, they argued, to finalize appropriations legislation to fund the operation of government in 2004. Democrats, including Progressives, voted against the rule in an effort to force prompt action on the spending bills. Republican leaders, argued Progressives, were using the CR as a way to hide from public view their inability to find common ground with Democrats on spending issues. On a vote of 311-112, the rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation was approved and the CR was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/First of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Consequently, proposals to expand prescription drug coverage have been a fixture on the congressional agenda in recent years; Republicans have generally favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for drug coverage through the Medicare program. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed action on a proposal which would provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). Essentially, the plan would use HMO's and other private insurance companies as a third-party contractor to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). On this vote, Representative Brown (D-OH) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 194-209, Brown's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the free-market provisions contained in the House bill when drafting the final version of the legislation in conference committee. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 599, 615, 619, 637, and 650.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 572 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, and 614). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for both military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Woolsey (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Woolsey's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Woolsey's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. All Democrats present voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was defeated on a party-line vote of 197-208. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
H.R. 2359. Employment Verification Program/Vote to Extend and Expand a 1996 Employment Verification Pilot Program Through 2008. In 1986, Congress passed and the president signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act which made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens. Under the Act, employers are required to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. In the view of Conservatives, however, the document-based verification approach was not effective because some illegal aliens obtained counterfeit documents and were able to skirt the 1986 Act. To strengthen employers' ability to verify the identities of their employees, Congress created a six-state pilot program in 1996 which allowed employers in those six states to crosscheck the Social Security and alien identification numbers which were submitted by recently-hired employees with databases maintained by the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Services to verify an employee's eligibility for employment. Conservatives viewed the 1996 employment verification approach as a tremendous success and, on this vote, sought to extend and expand the pilot program to all states through 2008 (the program was due to expire in 2003). This vote was a motion to suspend House rules and adopt the employment verification extension and expansion. When the Speaker of the House calls up a measure under suspension of the rules, debate is shut off, no amendments to the measure are allowed, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass the legislation (given the two-thirds requirement for passage, House leaders often reserve the suspensions process for non-controversial items). Progressives opposed the measure based on privacy concerns. In their view, extending the pilot program to every state would effectively create a national identification program with few if any privacy protections and could be used by the federal government to track its citizens. Progressives also cited a U.S. Department of Justice study which concluded that flaws in the pilot program-such as inaccurate and/or outdated immigration databases-would seriously impede its successful implementation on a national level. On a vote of 231-170, the motion to suspend House rules failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority vote for passage and the extension of the 1996 employment verification program was rejected. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Instruct House Conferees to Transform Half of Iraq's $20 Billion Reconstruction Budget from a Grant to a Loan. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed work on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the two versions of the legislation differed in certain respects and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two bills (if legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, lawmakers from each legislative body are selected by the party leadership to hash out a conference report; Congress's final legislative product). One major area of difference involved the structure of reconstruction funding for Iraq. In the Senate's version, half of Iraq's reconstruction budget was in the form of a grant and the other half was a loan (in both versions, the total reconstruction budget was about $20 billion). In the House's version, all of Iraq's reconstruction budget was in the form of a grant (unlike a loan, the recipient of a grant does not need to repay the money). The subject of this vote was an Obey (D-WI) motion to instruct House conferees to transform half of Iraq's reconstruction budget into a loan when drafting the final version of the legislation. In other words, David Obey and other Democrats wanted the conference version of the supplemental bill to mirror the Senate's language regarding the structure of reconstruction financing for Iraq. Progressives voted in support of Obey's motion because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Conservatives opposed Obey's motion and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. On a vote of 277-139, Obey's motion was adopted and House conferees were instructed to adopt the Senate's loan provisions when drafting the final version of the supplemental spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
H.J. Res. 73. Fiscal 2004 Continuing Appropriation/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Continuing Appropriation to Fund Government Operations at 2003 Levels Through October 31, 2003. Each congressional session, Congress must pass (and the president must sign) thirteen appropriations bills to finance the operation of government for the upcoming year. If Congress is unable to complete its work on time, a continuing appropriation (or CR, for continuing resolution) is needed to continuing financing government operations (CR's usually extend the previous years appropriation by one or more weeks). If a CR cannot be adopted before the fiscal year expires on October 1st, then the government-specifically those areas of government that Congress has failed to appropriate money for-shuts down. (A partial government shutdown occurred in 1995 when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich failed to reach a compromise on spending issues.) The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation which would fund government operations into the 2004 fiscal year (which confusingly began on October 1, 2003) at the previous year's levels. Conservatives supported their party leadership on the CR as a way to "buy time" to complete all thirteen appropriations bills; more time was needed, they argued, to finalize appropriations legislation to fund the operation of government in 2004. Democrats, including Progressives, voted against the rule in an effort to force prompt action on the spending bills. Republican leaders, argued Progressives, were using the CR as a way to hide from the public their inability to find common ground with Democrats on spending issues. On a party-line vote of 219-189, the rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation was approved and the CR was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Final Passage of a Supplemental Spending Bill for Costs Associated with Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subject of this vote was final passage of the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental spending package included, among other things, $18.6 billion in grants for Iraq's reconstruction, $39.9 billion for military operations and equipment maintenance, $339 million for weapons procurement, and $412 million for military construction projects. The measure also contained provisions requiring the normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts involving work on Iraq's oil infrastructure (see House vote 557). Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on their support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and the need to provide funding for those operations as quickly as possible. Progressives opposed the legislation on a number of grounds. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. Despite these objections by Progressives, the supplemental spending bill attracted strong support and was adopted on a vote of 303-125. WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Recommit to Committee the Supplemental Spending Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan with Instructions to Transform Half of Iraq's Reconstruction Budget from a Grant to a Loan. One of the few procedural rights afforded to the minority party in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, a motion to recommit sends legislation back to committee for further work and is usually accompanied by instructions to alter the legislation in a particular direction. On this vote, Congressman Kilpatrick (D-MI) offered the motion to recommit on behalf of the Democrats which included instructions to transform half of the $20 billion reconstruction budget for Iraq from a grant to a loan (unlike loans, the recipient of a grant does not need to repay the money). Progressives favored a loan for Iraq's reconstruction costs because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers should not be burdened with the entire cost of Iraq's reconstruction given that Iraq's oil reserves are estimated at over $1 trillion and that, in their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Congressman Obey (D-WI) had previously proposed an amendment to convert $10 billion of the $20 billion Iraqi reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan, but Obey's amendment was defeated (see House vote 546). Conservatives opposed changing Iraq's reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. On a party-line vote of 191-235, the motion to recommit was defeated and the supplemental spending bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote. (Note: The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill did include a loan provision (see Senate Vote 389). Thus, negotiators in conference committee needed to make the final determination on how the Iraq reconstruction budget will be structured.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on a Second Rule of Debate Which Would End Debate and Amending Activity and Bring the Underlying Supplemental Bill to a Final Vote After three days of House debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership drafted a second rule governing debate on the supplemental bill (the rules of debate are determined by the House Rules Committee, in effect an arm of the majority party leadership). Democrats, including Progressives, cried foul and pointed out that the second rule would effectively end all debate on the supplemental bill and bring the measure to a final vote. Only half of the 120 amendments that were offered during consideration of the supplemental bill, Progressives argued, had been debated on the House floor. In their view, the Republican leadership was ending debate prematurely in order to shield their rank-and-file from tough votes on widely-supported but yet-to-be-considered amendments which were drafted by Democratic lawmakers. According to Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, "The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental." Frost also suggested that democracy must first be brought to the House of Representatives before it is introduced in Iraq. Conservatives voted in favor of the second rule because, in their view, the three days of debate on the supplemental bill gave lawmakers ample time to offer their amendments. It was time, they argued, for the House to move forward and pass the supplemental spending bill so that the money would be available for use as quickly as possible. On a party-line vote of 221-201, the second rule was adopted and further debate on amendments was not allowed on the supplemental spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Proceed to a Vote on a Second Rule of Debate Which Would End Debate and Amending Activity and Bring the Underlying Supplemental Bill to a Final Vote. After three days of House debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership drafted a second rule governing debate on the supplemental bill (the rules of debate are determined by the House Rules Committee, in effect an arm of the majority party leadership). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the second rule (like legislation, rules can be debated and amended until a motion to proceed is passed to end debate and amending activity). Democrats, including Progressives, cried foul and pointed out that the second rule would effectively end all debate on the supplemental bill and bring the measure to a final vote. Only half of the 120 amendments that were offered during consideration of the supplemental bill, Progressives argued, had been debated on the House floor. In their view, the Republican leadership was ending debate prematurely in order to shield their rank-and-file from tough votes on widely-supported but yet-to-be-considered amendments which were drafted by Democratic lawmakers. According to Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, "The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental." Frost also suggested that democracy must be brought to the House of Representatives before it is introduced in Iraq. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed because, in their view, the three days of debate on the supplemental bill gave lawmakers ample time to offer their amendments and discuss the issues. It was time, they argued, for the House to move forward and pass the supplemental spending bill so that the money would be available for use as quickly as possible. On a perfectly party-line vote of 221-199, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was scheduled for the second rule of debate on the supplemental spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Bar Saudi Arabia from Receiving U.S. Financial Assistance. During debate on the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman Weiner (D-NY) proposed an amendment which would have prohibited any funding included in the supplemental bill from being used for loans to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government, Weiner argued, played an important role in financing the 9/11 hijackers, has funded suicide bombers in Israel, and, consequently, should be excluded from any U.S. financial assistance. Progressives voted in favor of Weiner's proposal as a way to punish Saudi Arabia for its close affiliation with terrorism against the United States and Israel. Conservatives opposed Weiner's measure and argued that while some members of Saudi's royal family no doubt support terrorist acts against the United States and Israel, many more support U.S. efforts against terrorism. Revoking U.S. assistance to Saudi Arabia, Conservatives argued, would undermine the U.S.-Saudi relationship in fighting terrorism. On a vote of 193-233, the Weiner amendment was rejected and the Saudi Arabia loan prohibition language was not added to the underlying supplemental spending bill to bar the kingdom from receiving U.S. loans. WAR & PEACE— Relations with Saudi Arabia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Require Competitive Bidding on Oil Contracts in Iraq. In January 2003, the Bush Administration awarded a no-bid, $50 million contract to Halliburton to restore damages to Iraq's oil fields. By October 1, 2003, the value of Halliburton's contract had grown to $1.4 billion. In response to the tripling of Halliburton's contract, Representative Waxman (D-CA) initiated several inquiries to determine how exactly the additional monies were being spent. After a round of fact-finding, it became clear to Waxman and others that Halliburton was overcharging the federal government to import and sell gasoline in Iraq. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service-a federal agency that provides lawmakers with policy research upon request-the average price of gasoline in the Middle East was approximately seventy-one cents. However, according to Waxman, Halliburton was charging the U.S. government $1.70 per gallon of gasoline. Waxman and other Progressives characterized Halliburton's actions as price-gouging and presented evidence that the oil company had overcharged the U.S. government by $250 million. Equally troubling to Progressives, however, was the financial stake of Vice President Cheney-Halliburton's former CEO-in the company. According to Cheney's financial disclosures to the IRS, the Vice President received $205,000 in 2001 and $165,000 in 2002 from the company. According to the IRS, the Vice President expects similar amounts of "deferred" compensation in 2003, 2004, and 2005 as well. In an effort to eliminate any conflicts-of-interest over the awarding of contracts in Iraq among members of the Bush Administration, Congressman Sherman (D-CA) offered an amendment to the $87 billion supplemental spending request which would have required normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts involving work on Iraq's oil infrastructure. Progressives endorsed Sherman's proposal as a way to insure that the most qualified-and not the most well-connected-companies are awarded taxpayer-funded contracts for rebuilding Iraq. Conservatives opposed the measure and argued that unanticipated contingencies in Iraq-such as a broken oil pipeline-require immediate action. A drawn-out competitive bidding procedure, Conservatives argued, could undermine the effectiveness of the U.S. reconstruction effort. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Sherman's amendment and, on a 248-173 vote, the measure was adopted and requirements for competitive bidding on oil contracts were included in the underlying supplemental spending bill. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Increase Funding for Human Rights Protections for Women and Girls in Afghanistan. One of the best ways to stem the tide of anti-Americanism in Iraq and Afghanistan, argued Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX), was to demonstrate the United States's commitment to protecting human rights. During debate on the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, Jackson-Lee proposed an amendment which would have appropriated $300 million for women's programs in Afghanistan, including $10 million for the Afghan Human Rights Commission and $24 billion for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. Progressives supported Jackson-Lee's proposal based on their view that the U.S. had a duty to protect the human rights of disadvantaged groups-in this case women and girls in the male-dominated Afghan society-from abuse and exploitation. Conservatives voted against the measure and argued that the underlying supplemental spending bill already contained $400 million for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. On a vote of 156-271, the Jackson-Lee amendment was defeated and the additional assistance to Afghan women and girls was not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Provide Additional Resources for Language and Cultural Education Programs for U.S. Intelligence Officers. In an effort to improve the effectiveness of the U.S. intelligence community, Congressman Reyes (D-TX) proposed an amendment to the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan which would have added $5 million to already-existing scholarships and programs designed to increase language proficiency and workforce diversity in intelligence agencies. Progressives supported Reyes's proposal because, in their view, preventing future acts of terrorism requires a cultural and linguistic understanding of intelligence targets. Too few U.S. intelligence officers, Progressives argued, thoroughly understand the language and culture of Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Even fewer are of Middle Eastern descent and have some capacity to infiltrate the enemy on their own soil. Conservatives generally supported Reyes's proposal but voted against the measure on the grounds that the supplemental spending bill was the wrong forum to address problems in the intelligence community. On a party-line vote of 206-221, the Reyes amendment was defeated and the additional money for language and cultural programs for U.S. intelligence officers was not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill. WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Provide All U.S. Service Personnel with a Pay Raise of $1500. During debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for costs associated with military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman Stupak (D-MI) proposed an amendment which would have increased the pay for all U.S. service personnel by $1500. Progressives supported Stupak's amendment because, in their view, U.S. troops-and especially National Guard soldiers-were being short-changed by the Bush Administration. Progressives pointed out that eighty percent of U.S. troops had no access to clean drinking water and many had contracted dysentery and other water-borne diseases as a result. Additionally, the administration had extended the tours of duty for National Guard soldiers in Iraq from six months to, in some cases, well over a year. Unlike full-time soldiers, National Guard soldiers often leave behind better-paying, full-time jobs in the U.S. in order to fulfill their military duty. Family finances often suffer as a result. The cost of Stupak's amendment was $256 million which would have been paid for by a reduction in funding for oil importation into Iraq. While Conservatives expressed strong support for U.S. troops abroad, they voted in opposition to the Stupak proposal because the funding mechanism would transfer money away from Iraq's reconstruction budget. The reconstruction of Iraq, Conservatives argued, was just as important as providing additional assistance to U.S. troops. On a tie vote of 213-213, the Stupak measure was defeated and military pay raises were not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill (legislation which results in a tie vote is defeated). WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Reduce the Reconstruction Budget for Iraq by Fifty Percent Until the Administration Presents a Clear Plan of Action to Congress Regarding Iraq's Reconstruction. The reconstruction budget for Iraq accounts for approximately $20 billion of the $87 billion included in the administration's supplemental spending request to Congress for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. While lawmakers generally support the administration's proposed military expenditures, there is less consensus regarding the amount and purpose of funds in the Iraq reconstruction budget. Prior to this vote, several unsuccessful efforts were made by Progressives to strip funding in the reconstruction budget for the oil company Halliburton. Evidence suggests that Halliburton, Vice President Cheney's former employer, had overcharged the federal government for the importation and sale of gasoline in Iraq by $250 million (see House votes 548 and 551). A Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown, and Root, had also allegedly fleeced the U.S. taxpayer by overcharging the military for meals provided to U.S. troops. Progressive lawmakers were also concerned about the enormous costs of the Iraqi reconstruction effort. In their view, the U.S. taxpayer should not bear the entire burden of reconstructing Iraq. Instead, they argued, the Bush Administration had a responsibility to attract international support and funding; that support, they pointed out, required a serious effort by administration officials because of what they characterized as President Bush's "go it alone" strategy in Iraq. And, finally, Progressives (and lawmakers generally) charged the Bush Administration with failing to adequately plan for post-war Iraq. In a move intended to hold the administration accountable for the reconstruction effort, Congressman Kind (D-WI) proposed a measure which would have reduced the reconstruction budget for Iraq by fifty percent, or $10 billion, until the administration presented a detailed plan to Congress regarding the specific nature of expenditures for Iraq's reconstruction. Progressives supported Kind's amendment because, in their view, the Bush Administration lacked a coherent policy for Iraq's reconstruction; spending money without a clear purpose, they argued, was wasteful. Conservatives opposed the measure. In their view, the best way to insure that U.S. troops arrive home quickly and safely is to proceed with Iraq's reconstruction as quickly as possible. Eliminating money from the underlying supplemental spending bill for reconstruction, they argued, would delay progress in Iraq. On a vote of 156-267, the Kind amendment was defeated and the $20 billion reconstruction budget for Iraq remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Strike Provisions Which Would Grant the Administration with Broad Discretion Over Future Military Construction Projects. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall be the sole branch of government that can spend money from the U.S. Treasury (the so-called "power of the purse"). At the same time, however, the Constitution vests military decision-making in the executive branch; one of the roles of the president is commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. In times of war, inter-branch conflicts often arise because, especially on war powers issues, the legislative and executive branches can be characterized as separated institutions sharing powers. During debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) proposed a measure which would have revoked funding for future, unspecified military construction projects. As originally drafted, the supplemental bill provided the Bush Administration with broad discretion over expenditures on military construction projects. In the view of Sanchez and other Progressives, those future projects would require congressional approval because Congress, and not the president, is constitutionally empowered to make the final determination regarding how U.S. taxpayer money should be spent. Conservatives opposed Sanchez's measure because, in their view, the president is better equipped than Congress to respond quickly to changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq. Congressional tardiness on issues of funding, Conservatives argued, might undermine U.S. military operations. On a vote of 128-295, the Sanchez amendment was struck down and provisions to grant the administration with broad discretion over future military construction projects remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Prevent the Importation of Oil into Iraq. In January 2003, the Bush Administration awarded a no-bid, $500 million contract to Halliburton to extinguish fires in Iraq's oil fields, restore Iraq's damaged oil pipelines, and, until Iraq's oil infrastructure is functioning properly, import oil into the country. By October 1, 2003, the value of Halliburton's contract had grown to $1.4 billion. In response to the tripling of Halliburton's contract, Representative Waxman (D-CA) initiated several inquiries to determine how exactly the additional monies were being spent. After a round of fact-finding, it became clear to Waxman and others that Halliburton was overcharging the federal government to import and sell gasoline in Iraq. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service-a federal agency that provides lawmakers with policy research upon request-the average price of gasoline in the Middle East was approximately seventy-one cents. However, according to Waxman, Halliburton was charging the U.S. government $1.70 per gallon of gasoline. Waxman and other Progressives characterized Halliburton's actions as price-gouging and presented evidence that the oil company had overcharged the U.S. government by $250 million. In an effort to penalize Halliburton for gasoline overcharges, Representative Holt (D-NJ) introduced an amendment to the 2004 supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan which would have eliminated all expenditures on the importation of oil into Iraq. Conservatives argued that importing oil into Iraq was necessary because Iraq's oil infrastructure had been severely neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime and was not operational. On a vote of 169-256, the Holt amendment was rejected and expenditures for oil importation into Iraq remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 550 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Eliminate Provisions in the Bill Which Would Provide the Administration with Broad Discretion Over the Use of U.S. Taxpayer Funds in Iraq. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall be the sole branch of government that can spend money from the U.S. Treasury (the so-called "power of the purse"). At the same time, however, the Constitution vests military decision-making in the executive branch in which one of the several roles of the president is commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. In times of war, inter-branch conflicts often arise because, especially on the issue of war powers, the legislative and executive branches can be characterized as separated institutions that share powers. During debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress, issues surfaced involving the constitutional separation of powers. Specifically, Progressives were concerned with language in the supplemental request which would grant the Bush administration broad authority to transfer funding from one area of the budget into another area of the budget without congressional approval. Progressives noted that $53 billion of the $87 billion included in the supplemental could be transferred by administration officials into areas which they, but not necessarily Congress, saw fit; in the view of Progressives, granting the president broad discretion over expenditures was unconstitutional. In an effort to protect Congress's power of the purse, Congressman Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment which would have eliminated many of the provisions in the supplemental bill which allowed the president and the Defense Secretary to transfer congressionally-allocated funding between accounts at their discretion. Conservatives opposed Markey's measure and argued that in order to fight the war in Iraq effectively, the president and members of his administration needed the authority to rearrange spending priorities as events on the ground unfolded. Congress, they argued, is often slow to respond to changing circumstances and, in the rapidly changing combat situation in Iraq, congressional tardiness on issues of funding might undermine military operations. On a vote 146-279, the Markey amendment was defeated and the provisions which provided the Bush Administration with broad discretion over funding issues remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Reduce Money Available to Halliburton for Oil Purchases In Response to Alleged Price-Gouging by the Oil Company. In January 2003, the Bush Administration awarded a no-bid, $500 million contract to Halliburton to restore damages to Iraq's oil fields (Vice President Cheney was formerly Halliburton's CEO and, though no longer employed by the company, he continues to receive financial compensation from Halliburton). By October 1, 2003, the value of Halliburton's contract had nearly tripled to $1.4 billion. In response to the tripling of Halliburton's contract, Representative Waxman (D-CA) initiated several inquiries to determine how exactly the additional money was being spent. After a round of fact-finding, it became clear to Waxman and others that Halliburton was overcharging the federal government to import gasoline into Iraq. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service-a federal agency that provides lawmakers with policy research upon request-the average price of gasoline in the Middle East was approximately seventy-one cents. However, according to Waxman, Halliburton was charging the U.S. government $1.70 per gallon of gasoline. Waxman and other Progressives characterized Halliburton's actions as price-gouging and presented evidence that the oil company had fleeced U.S. taxpayers out of $250 million. In an effort to penalize Halliburton for gasoline overcharges, Waxman introduced an amendment to the 2004 supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan which would have stripped $250 million from the bill which Halliburton intended to use for future imports and sales of oil and gasoline. Conservatives defended Halliburton and argued that the increased value of Halliburton's contract resulted from unanticipated costs in repairing the worse-than-expected condition of Iraq's oil infrastructure. On a vote of 197-224, the Waxman amendment was defeated and Halliburton was not punished for its charges to the U.S. government in providing gasoline in Iraq. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Provide Additional Funding for Quality of Life Enhancements for U.S. Troops. During debate on an $87 billion supplemental spending request for military actions and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Representative Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have transferred $3.6 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds into quality of life enhancements for U.S. military personnel. During debate on his measure, Obey pointed out that only twenty percent of U.S. soldiers have access to clean drinking water. Consequently, a large number of U.S. soldiers have contacted dysentery and other water-borne diseases. Obey's amendment would have also provided additional health benefits to reservists and full-time soldiers by extending coverage under the military health care plan from sixty days to one-hundred and eighty days upon return from combat duty. Progressives voted in favor of Obey's amendment because, in their view, the administration's supplemental spending request provided an insufficient amount of funding to protect the health of U.S. troops ($15 million was included in the supplemental request to improve access to clean and safe drinking water). Conservatives opposed the measure and argued that transferring reconstruction money into other areas would undermine the reconstruction effort. On a vote of 209-216, the Obey amendment was rejected and the additional funding for quality of life enhancements for U.S. troops was not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill. WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Convert $10 Billion of the $20 Billion Iraq Reconstruction Budget from a Grant to a Loan. One major issue which arose during House debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for costs associated with military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan involved the financing of reconstruction aid to Iraq. As originally drafted, the supplemental spending bill would provide $20 billion in Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of a grant (a grant, unlike a loan, does not require a recipient to repay the money). Progressives favored a loan for Iraq's reconstruction costs because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers should not be burdened with the entire cost of Iraq's reconstruction, especially given that Iraq's oil reserves are estimated at over $1 trillion and that, in their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who might have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. In a move intended to lighten the fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have converted $10 billion of the $20 billion Iraqi reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan. Conservatives opposed Obey's amendment and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. Obey's proposal was defeated on a vote of 200-226 and the $20 billion reconstruction budget for Iraq remained constituted in the form of a grant. (Note: An identical proposal to Obey's was narrowly adopted in the Senate (see Senate Vote 389) which required negotiators in conference committee to make the final determination of how the Iraq reconstruction budget will be structured.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Rules of Debate for the Bush Administration's $87 Billion Supplemental Spending Request for Costs Associated with Military Actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In its 2004 budget request to Congress, the Bush Administration failed to include funding for military actions and reconstruction efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In response to this omission, Democrats chastised the White House for submitting a budget which, in their view, failed to accurately reflect the true costs of military involvement in those two countries. Some lawmakers-most notably Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Representative David Obey (D-WI)-even accused the Bush Administration of purposely misleading the American public about the cost of war in order to maintain support among the electorate. After the president's budget had been approved by Congress, the White House drafted an $87 billion supplemental spending request to pay for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subject of this vote was a motion to order the previous question-a procedural motion which ends debate and the possibility of amendment-on the rules of debate for the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. Progressives voted in opposition to the motion based on their objections to the underlying supplemental spending request. In their view, the supplemental request would create a financial burden for future U.S. taxpayers because, by failing to include revenue-generating mechanisms to pay for military involvement, the U.S. government would be forced to borrow huge sums of money to pay for military actions. That borrowed money, Progressives noted, would have to be repaid by future generations. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their support for President Bush's supplemental spending request. On a vote of 221-202, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate for the supplemental spending request was adopted. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Strike Health Savings Accounts From the Conference Committee Version of the Prescription Drug Bill. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Schakowsky (D-IL) motioned to instruct House conferees to reject provisions in the House-passed bill which would create tax-favored health savings accounts. Progressives supported Schakowsky's motion because, in their view, health savings accounts would mainly benefit middle and high income earners rather than those individuals who are least able to afford prescription drugs. The estimated $174 billion cost of implementing health savings accounts, Progressives argued, could be better spent closing the gaps in prescription drug coverage which are contained in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the House-passed bill, for instance, patients would be required to pay full price-i.e. get no insurance coverage-for all expenditures on prescription drugs between $2000 and $4900 per year. Progressives noted that half of all seniors have yearly expenditures on prescription drugs which fall within this gap in coverage. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct; in their view, health savings accounts would provide individuals with a safe, reliable, and tax-favored method of saving for future health expenses. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to Schakowsky's motion to instruct and, on a 190-218 vote, the motion was struck down and the House conferees were not instructed to strike health savings accounts from the conference committee version of the prescription drug bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 572, and 614.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Crowley (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Crowley's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Crowley's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was narrowly defeated on a party-line vote of 203-204. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 540 |
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include a Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling Operations in the Conference Committee Version of the Legislation. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate adopted legislation to overhaul the nation's energy policies. To reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation, a conference committee was convened to produce a final legislative product. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congresswoman Capps (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to maintain language in the House version of the bill which would place a moratorium on new offshore oil drilling operations. Progressives supported Capps's motion because, in their view, U.S. energy policies should address the demand for energy-and not just energy supplies-through proposals such as improved fuel economy in automobiles and the development of sustainable energy sources such as solar and wind power. In other words, Progressives argued that the U.S. should not try to "drill out" of its dependence on oil because domestic oil production, even with expanded oil drilling operations, can only satisfy a small fraction of total U.S. oil consumption. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct. In their view, an expansion in domestic oil production would reduce U.S. dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. On a vote of 229-182, the Capps motion was successful and House conferees were instructed to include the moratorium on offshore oil drilling operations in the conference committee version of the energy legislation. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Create Income Thresholds Which Would Dictate the Amount of Health Coverage Individuals' Receive. In 2003, federal expenditures on Medicare exceeded $244 billion. And, barring permanent changes to the program, Medicare costs will continue to increase as baby-boomers retire and begin receiving Medicare benefits. To address the rising costs of Medicare, the GOP-controlled Congress adopted a prescription drug bill to provide drug coverage through private insurance companies rather than through Medicare. However, the legislation which emerged from the House and Senate differed in certain areas and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congressman Flake (R-AZ) motioned to instruct House conferees to include income thresholds on health coverage (income thresholds in public policy lingo are called "means-tests"). Conservatives viewed Flake's motion as a common-sense method of cost containment. Why, Conservatives asked, should the federal government provide health benefits to the wealthiest members of society who can already afford medical care? Progressives opposed Flake's motion for several reasons. First, they argued, adopting income thresholds on health coverage would transform Medicare from an entitlement program-which all qualified seniors, regardless of income, can benefit from-into a welfare program. Progressives contended that transforming Medicare into a welfare program that was only available to low-income individuals would undermine popular support for the federal health insurance program-a program which was initially created to insure that equal health benefits are available to every senior citizen regardless of their income. Second, wealthy individuals, like everyone else, pay into the Medicare system through payroll taxes. Progressives argued that denying Medicare benefits to wealthy individuals would be unfair because those individuals pay an even greater amount in Medicare taxes per year than lower income individuals. On a vote of 161-234, the Flake motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to add income thresholds to the conference committee version of the prescription drug legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Strike Health Savings Accounts From the Conference Committee Version of the Prescription Drug Bill. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congressman Bishop (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to reject provisions in the House-passed bill which would create tax-favored health savings accounts. Progressives supported Bishop's motion because, in their view, health savings accounts would mainly benefit middle and high income earners rather than those individuals who are least able to afford prescription drugs. The estimated $174 billion cost of implementing health savings accounts, Progressives argued, could be better spent closing the gaps in prescription drug coverage which are contained in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the House-passed bill, for instance, patients would be required to pay full price-i.e. get no insurance coverage-for all expenditures on prescription drugs between $2000 and $4900 per year. Yearly expenditures on prescription drugs for half of all seniors, Progressives noted, fall within this gap in coverage. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct; in their view, health savings accounts would provide individuals with a safe, reliable, and tax-favored method of saving for future health expenses. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to Bishop's motion to instruct and, on a 181-214 vote, the motion was struck down and the House conferees were not instructed to strike health savings accounts from the conference committee version of the prescription drug bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Strike Administration-Drafted Rules Which Would Deny Overtime Pay to Certain Classes of Workers. One of the most controversial provisions in the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill was an administration-sponsored effort to exempt certain classes of workers from overtime pay. Specifically, the provision would exempt white-collar workers, such as executive assistants, administrators, and professionals, from overtime pay even if those employees worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. In the view of Progressives, the proposed rules changes would violate both workers' rights and fair labor practices. Progressives also pointed out that many workers depend on overtime pay to provide for their families and that denying overtime pay would cause them financial hardship. Conservatives had a different position on the overtime pay issue. In their view, the laws governing overtime pay, which were first enacted by Congress over fifty years ago, required revisiting in light of current economic conditions. According to Congressman Regula (R-OH), "it has been over 50 years since the present [overtime] rules were promulgated and the [Labor] department thinks it is important to take a look [at overtime rules] in relationship to today's world, today's communications, today's structures of our labor programs that would be realistic." (Note: During debate on the issue, Conservatives never explicitly identified the current economic conditions which required modifying the rules governing overtime pay.) The administration's proposed modifications to overtime pay rules, Conservatives added, would extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million workers who currently do not qualify for overtime pay. Conservatives also argued that failing to include the administration's proposed limitations on overtime pay in the underlying appropriations bill would trigger a veto from President Bush. The subject of this vote was a motion offered by Congressman Obey (D-WI) to instruct House conferees to prevent the enactment of the administration's overtime pay rules during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (when legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to iron out differences between the two versions of the legislation). Twenty-one Republicans voted alongside an overwhelming majority of Democrats in support of Obey's motion, the motion to instruct was agreed to on a vote of 221-203, and House conferees were instructed to prevent the passage of any rules which would deny overtime pay to workers. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
S 3. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban/Final Passage of a Conference Report Which Would Ban "Intact Dilation and Extraction" Abortions. A top priority for social Conservatives in 2003 was passage of a ban on "intact dilation and extraction" abortions, or what opponents call "partial birth" abortions. While similar bans on the medial procedure were adopted by Congress in 1996 and 1997, then-President Clinton vetoed both measures. President Bush, however, has promised to sign the measure if it reaches his desk. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report which would ban "intact dilation and extraction" abortions unless the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother. (When legislation passed the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation, and a conference report represents Congress's final legislative product.) Abortion opponents-and even some who supported a woman's right to choose-called the medical procedure murder. Pro-choice lawmakers, including Progressives, responded that the rarely-used procedure was designed to protect the health of the mother, and that the majority of cases involved an infant that was not viable outside the womb. Furthermore, Progressives argued that the ban was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. On a vote of 281-142, the House adopted the conference report and the measure was sent to the Senate. (The Senate adopted the conference report on October 21 and the measure was signed into law by President Bush on November 5.) FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 541, 572, and 614.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Davis (D-AL) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Davis's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (when the House and Senate have passed different versions of a piece of legislation, a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Davis's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 199-214. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills. One area of policy disagreement involved the inclusion of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area (without adequate competition among private insurance companies in a particular locality, the cost of health coverage in that area would likely increase because consumers would have few alternative health insurance options available to them and, as a result, private insurers could charge higher rates). A fallback option would have provided seniors in under-served regions of the country-regions which are usually poor and are avoided by private companies based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-with a government-backed health plan to insure that seniors in under-served areas are able to afford prescription drug coverage. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. In a fifth attempt to require that House conferees adopt a Medicare fallback option for seniors in under-served areas, Representative Case (D-HI) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the Senate's fallback language during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (see also House votes 359, 502, 522, and 524). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Case's motion because, in their view, the original House version of the legislation already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which Conservatives argued would be created in the House bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 208-215, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not compelled to adopt the Senate's language which would have created a Medicare prescription drug fallback option for seniors in under-served areas. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Fully Compensate the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for Costs Associated With Fire Suppression Activities Incurred During 2002. In 2002, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) together spent $1.2 billion fighting forest fires (an unusually high amount in comparison to expenditures on fire suppression activities in previous years). However, unlike most other federal agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM are not automatically compensated by the federal government for their disaster relief efforts and expenditures. While the Bush Administration repaid $825 million of the $1.2 billion spent on fighting wildfires, the Forest Service and the BLM would still be required to make cuts in other areas of their budgets in order to pay off the remaining $400 million which was spent on fighting wildfires. On this vote, Representative Dicks (D-WA) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers who participated in a conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of legislation to fund the Interior Department, Forest Service, BLM, and related agencies during 2004-to include an additional $400 million for fire suppression activities conducted by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, the budgets of the Forest Service and the BLM should not be cut on account of greater-than-expected costs in fighting wildfires. Progressives argued that without full reimbursement for costs associated with wildfire suppression activities-which they pointed out can vary enormously from year-to-year-the Forest Service and the BLM would be forced to cancel construction and land acquisition projects, reforestation programs in national forests, endangered species protection efforts, and other important activities. Conservatives voted in opposition to Dicks's proposal but did not present arguments in favor of their position on the House floor. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Dicks's proposal and, with the support of fifty-eight Republicans, the motion to instruct was adopted and the House conferees were compelled to fully compensate the Forest Service and the BLM for costs associated with fire suppression activities. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 529, 541, 572, and 614.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the bill. On this vote, Representative Pallone (D-NJ) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would have extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Pallone's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Pallone's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 202-207. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills (when legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation). One area of policy disagreement involved the inclusion of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area (without adequate competition among private insurance companies in a particular locality, the cost of health coverage in that area would likely increase because consumers would have few alternative health insurance options available to them and, as a result, private insurers could charge higher rates). A fallback option would have provided seniors in under-served regions of the country-regions which are usually poor and are avoided by private companies based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-with a government-backed health plan to insure that seniors in under-served areas are able to afford prescription drug coverage. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. In a fourth attempt to require that House conferees adopt a Medicare fallback option for seniors in under-served areas, Representative Sandlin (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the Senate's fallback language during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (see also House votes 359, 502, 522, and 528). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. Conservatives voted against Sandlin's motion because, in their view, the original House version of the legislation already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which Conservatives argued would be created in the House bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 202-205, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to adopt the Senate's language to create a Medicare prescription drug fallback option for seniors in under-served areas. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee between the two chambers of Congress was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. In a third attempt to require that House conferees adopt a Medicare fallback option for seniors in under-served areas, Representative Kind (D-WI) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the Senate's fallback language during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (see also roll call votes 359 and 502). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Kind's motion based on their support for the current form of the House-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. In their view, the House-passed legislation already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage; free-market competition among private insurance companies, which they argued was provided in the underlying bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 199-220, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not compelled to adopt the Senate's language which provided a prescription drug fallback option for seniors living in under-served areas of the country. hey AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
H.R. 2657. Legislative Branch Appropriations/Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions. The 2004 Legislative Branch appropriations bill-a spending bill which funds the legislative branch of government (the House, Senate, legislative staff, and related agencies)-was the second spending measure considered by Congress in 2003. The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee the conference report of the legislative branch spending bill (if legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions; a conference report is the final product of conference committee negotiations). The motion to recommit, which was offered by Congressman Moran (D-VA), included instructions to increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to $1.55 billion (the level of funding included in the Senate's original version of the bill). Progressives supported the additional funding for FEMA based on their view that FEMA plays a vital role in disaster relief efforts around the U.S. Progressives noted that FEMA agents provided invaluable assistance to state and local police and fire departments in the wake of 9/11 and was currently involved in assisting the victims of Hurricane Isabel. In the view of Conservatives, the amount of funding for FEMA included in the underlying conference report was sufficient and they voted against the motion to recommit. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to recommit but, on a party line vote of 202-225, the motion was rejected and the conference report was allowed to proceed to a final vote without the extra funding for FEMA that Democrats had hoped for. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
H R 2555. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Spending Bill for the Department of Homeland Security with Instructions to Require the Screening of All Cargo Shipped By Passenger Aircraft. In perhaps the largest reorganization of government conducted in the last fifty years, Congress in 2002 merged numerous federal agencies involved in fighting terrorism into a new Department of Homeland Security. In June 2003, the House adopted the first appropriations bill to fund the new Department and the Senate followed suit in July 2003. To iron out differences between the two versions of the legislation, a conference committee was convened and a conference report was finalized in September. To become law, however, a conference report (the final version of a piece of legislation) must be adopted by each legislative body and signed by the president (or passed by a two-thirds supermajority by Congress after a presidential veto). Prior to final passage in the House, Congressman Sabo (D-MN) motioned to recommit the conference report to committee with instructions to add language to the bill which would prevent the transport of unscreened cargo on passenger flights. Progressives supported Sabo's motion because, in their view, the transport of unscreened cargo-a common practice in the airline industry in which extra space in a plane's cargo hold is used for the transport of commercial goods-represented a loophole in the bill which terrorists could exploit (unlike passenger luggage, commercial cargo does not pass through a security screening). Conservatives opposed the motion because, in their view, current technology is not sufficiently advanced to enable the screening of all cargo shipped by passenger airplanes. On a party line vote of 198-226, the motion to recommit was defeated, the screening requirement for cargo holds on passenger flights was excluded from the conference report, and the measure was allowed to proceed to a final vote. (The conference report subsequently passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the president.) MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
H R 1409. Indians Land Exchange Act/Vote to Suspend House Rules and Adopt a Land Exchange Proposal Between the Federal Government and Cherokee Indians in North Carolina. In the House, the suspensions calendar is reserved for legislation which enjoys broad, bipartisan support. By "suspending the rules"-a procedure which allows the consideration of items on the suspensions calendar, prevents amending activity on the House floor, and requires a two-thirds majority for passage-House leaders are often able to secure swift passage of widely-supported legislation. The subject of this vote was a motion to suspend the rules of the House and hold a vote on legislation which would finalize a land exchange between the federal government and the Cherokee Indian tribe in the Great Smoky Mountains of North Carolina. The purpose of the land exchange was to construct a new school for Cherokee students to replace what proponents of the measure characterized as the overcrowded, outdated, and unsafe school that Cherokee students presently attend. Progressives supported the land exchange as a way to improve the educational opportunities available to Cherokee students. Conservatives opposed the measure for two main reasons. First, the Great Smoky Mountains are one of the most visited National Parks in the United States; the land exchange, they argued, would occur in the middle of the park and would disrupt the flow of visitors to one of the nation's most pristine wildlife areas. Second, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to complete an environmental impact study of the proposed land exchange. Proceeding without the EPA's recommendations, Conservatives argued, would be premature. On a vote of 288-127, the land exchange proposal attracted the necessary two-thirds majority and was adopted by the House. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
H R 1588. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004/Motion to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Language Included in the Senate's Version of the Bill Which Would Expedite the Naturalization of Immigrant Soldiers. In June 2003, the House adopted authorizing legislation which outlined defense expenditures for 2004. After House passage, a conference committee was convened to reconcile policy differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. To date, however, a finalized version of the authorizing legislation has failed to emerge from the conference committee. In an effort to dislodge one particular policy item from the stagnant debate on the defense authorization bill, Congressman Rodriguez (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees (those involved in conference committee negotiations with the Senate) to adopt language contained in the Senate's version of the legislation which would extend immigration benefits to the families of immigrant soldiers who died in the line of duty and expedite the naturalization of immigrant soldiers who are currently serving in the U.S. armed forces. While similar language was not included in the House version, on June 4 the House did pass the Armed Forces Naturalization Act on an overwhelming 414-5 vote to accomplish many of the same purposes of the aforementioned Senate language. Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, immigrants who serve in the United States military should be rewarded for their sacrifices. (Legal U.S. residents who are non-citizens comprise about three percent of the U.S. military or, more specifically, 37,000 soldiers.) Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct for procedural reasons. While Conservatives supported the effort to expedite the naturalization of immigrant soldiers, they opposed the introduction of immigrant issues into conference committee negotiations on the defense authorization bill. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Rodriguez's motion and, with Republicans divided on the issue, the motion was adopted 298-118 and the House conferees were instructed to adopt the Senate's language on immigrant issues during conference committee negotiations. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. On this vote, Representative Stenholm (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the fallback option included in the Senate bill during conference committee negotiations. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Stenholm's motion based on their support for the current version of the House-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. In their view, the House-passed legislation currently in conference committee already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which they argued was provided in the underlying bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 202-213, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not compelled to adopt the Senate language regarding a Medicare prescription drug fallback option. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Ryan (D-OH) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Ryan's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Ryan's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 199-214. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
H.R. 7. Charitable Giving Act/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Would Create Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving. One of the few procedural prerogatives available to minority party members in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion to recommit sends a measure back to committee and is usually accompanied by instructions to alter the language of the bill. The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee the so-called Charitable Giving Act with instructions to extend the child tax credit to low-income families. While the previously-enacted $350 billion tax cut included a provision to increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1000, the final version of the tax legislation that passed the House did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats have made numerous attempts to force the child tax credit issue onto Congress's agenda. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit based on their support for extending the child tax credit to low-income families. Conservatives opposed the motion because, in their view, Congress should handle the child tax credit issue in a separate piece of legislation and not debate the child tax credit issue during consideration of the Charitable Giving Act. On a party-line vote of 201-221, the motion to recommit was defeated and the Charitable Giving Act was allowed to proceed in the legislative process without including the child tax credit for low-income families. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
H.R. 7. Charitable Giving Act/Vote on the Democratic Substitute Bill Which, Unlike the Republican Version, Includes Offsetting Revenue Increases to Pay for the Proposed Tax Breaks for Charitable Giving. During his presidential election campaign in 2000, then-Governor Bush proposed a wide range of "faith-based" initiatives to, among other things, enhance the role of charitable organizations in society and encourage contributions to charities. While many of Bush's "faith-based" initiatives have failed to pass Congress, agreement was reached among lawmakers on the merits of a proposal to provide tax incentives for charitable contributions. However, one major sticking point remained: how should Congress pay for the new tax breaks on charitable giving? During debate on the charitable giving legislation, Congressman Cardin (D-MD) offered a substitute measure on behalf of all Democrats which would have offset the revenue losses caused by the new tax deductions by reducing to amount of corporate tax breaks provided in President Bush's 2002 tax cut (tax deductions reduce the amount of money available for government programs and services). With the exception of the offsetting revenue provision, Cardin's substitute bill was identical to the Republican version of the bill. Progressives viewed Cardin's bill as the fiscally-responsible alternative to the Republican measure and voted in favor of the proposal. The creation of additional tax breaks without corresponding offsets, Progressives argued, would further deplete the amount of funding available for domestic priorities such as education, health care, and Social Security. Conservatives rejected Cardin's measure based on what they viewed as a retroactive tax increase on corporations. Retroactive tax law changes, Conservatives argued, were unfair because businesses base their investment decisions in part on the current body of tax laws. Retroactive tax increases, then, can be likened to moving the goal posts midway through the game. On a party-line vote of 203-220, the Cardin substitute bill was defeated. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. On this vote, Representative Michaud (D-ME) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the fallback option included in the Senate bill during conference committee negotiations. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Michaud's motion based on their support for the current form of the House-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. In their view, the House-passed legislation currently in conference committee already contains language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which they argued was provided in the underlying bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 189-220, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were therefore not compelled to adopt the Senate language which provided a prescription drug fallback option for seniors living in under-served areas of the country. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, five other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 446, 447, and 449). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Davis (D-TN) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Davis's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Davis's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 195-214. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 509, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Preempt State Laws Governing Consumer Access to Credit Reports. One important issue raised during debate on legislation to extend the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1996 involved the preemption of states laws involving credit reporting. That issue was raised in the form of an amendment offered by Congressman Ney (R-OH) which would prevent states from enacting new laws governing consumer access to their credit reports. Progressives opposed Ney's amendment because, in their view, state legislatures and governors should be able to enact more consumer-friendly credit laws on behalf of citizens of their state even if those laws are more generous to consumers than the federal standards. Georgia and Colorado, Progressives noted, already provide consumers with greater access to their credit reports. Those laws and all future pro-consumer credit laws, Progressives argued, would be preempted by federal laws if the Ney amendment was enacted. Conservatives countered that existing federal standards governing access to credit reports already provide consumers with free credit reports from the three major credit reporting firms. The introduction of non-uniform state laws, Conservatives continued, would complicate matters for credit reporting agencies and would increase the cost of generating a credit report. The Ney amendment was adopted on a 233-189 vote and the overriding of state laws by the federal one was added to the underlying credit reporting bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Expand Consumer Access to Free Credit Reports. Consumers who need to secure credit for whatever reason can turn to a number of sources, including national, regional, or even local credit agencies. As currently drafted, however, the credit reporting legislation under consideration here only provides consumers with free access to those credit reports which were generated by one of three national credit agencies. To expand consumer access to their credit reports, Congressman Frank (D-MA) proposed an amendment to the underlying credit reporting bill which would provide consumers with free access to any credit reports generated by regional credit agencies. Progressives supported Frank's proposal as a way to increase the amount of information available to consumers about their credit history in order to protect them against errors, inconsistencies, or purposeful manipulation of their credit reports by creditors. Conservatives opposed Frank's proposal and pointed out that the three national credit agencies generate 95% of all credit reports in the U.S. Providing free access to credit reports from regional agencies, they argued, would only minimally improve consumers' access to their credit reports. On a 235-186 vote, the Frank amendment was adopted and language was included in the underlying legislation to provide consumers with free access to credit reports generated by regional credit agencies. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Include Sunset Language in the Underlying Bill. During debate on legislation to extend the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1996, Congressman Kanjorski (D-PA) proposed an amendment to add "sunset" language to the underlying credit reporting bill which would have required Congress to revisit the laws governing the credit reporting industry after those laws had been in effect for nine years. Progressives supported Kanjorski's proposal because, in their view, the rapid pace of technological advancements-and the increased incidences of identity theft and other credit-related scams-requires flexible policies governing the credit reporting industry. When the 1996 law was enacted, Progressives pointed out, identity theft was nearly non-existent and, as such, that law included few safeguards to protect consumers' identity. If Congress enacts new credit laws without sunset provisions, Progressives continued, then the national legislature would be poorly-equipped to respond to new contingencies in the credit reporting industry. (If legislation is enacted without a sunset provision, then it can retain legal force indefinitely. Sunset provisions effectively force the previously-enacted legislation back onto the congressional agenda for reconsideration). Conservatives responded that the sunset provision was not needed because Congress, even without sunset language, can revisit issues of credit reporting as contingencies arise. (Doing so requires the consent of the majority party leadership unless a majority of representatives sign a discharge petition to force the issue onto the House floor. Discharge petitions, however, rarely succeed.) On a vote of 112-310, the Kanjorski amendment was struck down and the proposed sunset language was not included in the underlying credit reporting legislation. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Prevent Credit Card Companies from Raising Interest Rates on Cardholders Who Pay Their Bills on Time. In 1996, Congress passed legislation known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act which, among other things, imposed federal regulations on the credit reporting industry and mandated uniform credit reporting standards across states. States, then, were preempted by the 1996 law from enacting either more or less stringent credit reporting measures than those required by the federal government. Provisions in the 1996 law, and specifically those mandating uniform credit reporting standards for states, were due to expire on January 1, 2004. In an effort to extend the 1996 law into the future, Republican leaders brought credit reporting legislation to the House floor for debate. During House consideration of the measure, Congressman Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment which would have prevented credit card companies from raising the interest rates of those cardholders who pay their bills on time. Currently, credit card companies are allowed to increase interest rates on an individual's credit card if any of the following conditions obtain: 1) the cardholder makes a late payment on another credit card or a student loan; 2) the cardholder's credit score is lowered; 3) or the cardholder obtains a new mortgage or loan to pay for a house, car, or medical emergency. This list, it should be noted, is not exclusive; credit card companies can increase their rates for just about any reason so long as consumers are provided a 30 day notice of the change in their policy. Progressives voted in favor of Sander's amendment because, in their view, consumers should not be subjected to credit card rate hikes unless they fail to pay their credit card bill on time. Credit activity not directly related to an individual's payments on their credit card, Progressives argued, should not be used by credit card companies-the big three being Chase Manhattan, Citigroup, and Bank One-to increase interest rates. Conservatives opposed Sanders's amendment because, in their view, the additional credit information collected from consumers and used by credit card companies helps those companies determine the proper amount of risk they face from each cardholder (interest rates can be viewed as a calculation of risk). During debate on the Sanders's amendment, Conservatives relied on testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to make their case. In Greenspan's words: "The information gathered by credit reporting companies on the borrowing and payment experiences of consumers is a cornerstone of the consumer credit system in this country. Experience indicates that access to the information assembled by these companies and credit evaluation systems based on that information have improved the overall quality and reduced the cost of credit decisions while expanding the availability of credit." On a vote of 142-272, the Sanders amendment was struck down and the proposed restrictions on interest rate increases based on credit activity not directly related to an individual's payments on his or her credit card were not included in the underlying credit reporting legislation. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Ruppersberger (D-MD) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Ruppersberger's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Ruppersberger's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 206-213. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Spending Bill Which Would Fund Public Services in Washington, D.C. and Create a $10 Million Private School Voucher Program for DC Students. The subject of this vote was final passage of the $7.9 billion District of Columbia appropriation bill, a spending bill which would fund public services, programs, and government agencies benefiting the residents of Washington, D.C during 2004. Progressives voted against final passage based on their objections to provisions in the underlying bill which would create a $10 million private school voucher program in Washington, D.C. In the view of Progressives, private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. Additionally, Progressives argued, private school vouchers would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher per eligible student would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs for that student (private school tuition often exceeds $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would be the main beneficiaries of private school vouchers. Conservatives supported the private school voucher plan and voted in favor of final passage. In the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in poor public schools but who would be able to attend private schools if a voucher program were enacted. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. On a close vote of 210-206, the 2004 DC appropriations bill, which included the contested private school voucher program, was adopted. hey EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Second Vote to Create a $10 Million Private School Voucher Program in DC. During debate on the 2004 District of Columbia appropriation bill, the main issue of contention involved the creation of a private school voucher program in DC. On a previous vote (roll call vote 478), the House adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Davis (R-VA) to create a $10 million school voucher program in the District whereby eligible elementary or secondary school students would receive $7500 to transfer from public to private schools. After House Republican leaders extended the vote on Davis's amendment beyond the customary fifteen minutes in order to whip up additional support for the measure, the Davis amendment was narrowly passed by a 205-203 margin. In response to what they viewed as excessive strong-arm tactics by the Republican leadership, Democrats invoked a seldom-used parliamentary procedure to hold a second vote on the Davis amendment. Progressives opposed the Davis amendment (and private school vouchers generally) on two main grounds. First, Progressives argued that private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. Second, Davis's amendment would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs (which often exceed $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would benefit most from private school vouchers. Conversely, in the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in a poor public school but would, with a voucher, be able to attend a private school. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. By another narrow margin, the Davis amendment was adopted 208-207 and the DC school voucher program remained in the underlying DC appropriations bill. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Restrict Travel to Cuba for Educational Purposes. In March of 2003, the Treasury Department issued a new rule which would halt certain educational trips to Cuba known as "people-to-people" exchanges. For years, educational institutions, churches, and not-for-profit organizations have engaged in people-to-people exchanges with Cuba to promote learning, the free exercise of religion, and democratic ideals among the Cuban populace; if adopted, the Treasury Department rule would end those exchanges. During debate on the 2004 Treasury and Transportation appropriations bill, Congressman Davis (D-FL) offered an amendment which would effectively prevent the Treasury Department from enforcing its restrictions on people-to-people exchanges. Progressives supported Davis's effort; in their view, democratizing Cuba is best accomplished by exposing the communist country and its citizens to the democratic ideals of the U.S. through interactions with U.S. citizens and groups. Conservatives favor a more hard-line approach to Cuba; in their view, an economic and travel embargo on Cuba offers the best hope to topple the Castro regime. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) articulated this view clearly during debate on the Davis amendment. In her words: "[educational] travel is subject to manipulation and control by the Castro dictatorship and its tourism industries in order to meet the regime's political and economic agenda." Despite opposition from Conservatives, the Davis amendment was adopted on a 246-173 vote and funding to enforce the additional restrictions on educational travel to Cuba was eliminated from the underlying appropriations bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Implementation of Administration Plans to Privatize Fifteen Percent of the Federal Workforce. In May 2003, the Office of Management and Budget issued a directive to federal agencies which would require all federal agencies to make fifteen percent of their jobs available for private-sector competition by the end of September. Conservatives supported the Bush Administration's efforts to privatize the federal workforce; in their view, many of the responsibilities of government could be better-performed by private firms. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Congressman Van Hollen (D-MD) proposed a measure which would effectively prevent the implementation of OMB's May 2003 privatization rule. Progressives voted in favor of Van Hollen's proposal. In their view, privatizing federal jobs could undermine the performance of government. Private firms, they argued, must turn a profit to survive and therefore have incentives to institute shortcuts at the expense of U.S. citizens. Many federal jobs, Progressives pointed out, were created in large part because the private sector was unable to adequately perform those duties (such as road-building, protecting consumers, and regulating environmental polluters). On a vote of 220-198, Van Hollen's amendment was adopted and all funding was removed from the underlying appropriations bill to implement OMB's May 2003 privatization rule. (It is important to note that roll call vote 487 differs slightly from roll call vote 486. In vote 486, Democrats attempted to prevent federal agencies from identifying federal jobs that could be privatized. In vote 487, Democrats succeeded in preventing the actual implementation of privatization plans.) LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Eliminate Funding for Studies into Privatizing 425,000 Federal Jobs. In 2001, shortly after the Bush Administration assumed office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed all federal agencies to identify 425,000 federal jobs that could be privatized. In the view of Conservatives, many jobs in the federal government can be conducted by the private sector. The impetus behind OMB's directive was to reduce the size of government and improve its efficiency. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Representative Hastings (D-FL) offered an amendment which would have prevented any funds in the underlying appropriations bill from being used to require federal agencies to make inventories of federal jobs that could be conducted by private companies. Progressives supported the Hastings amendment. In their view, privatizing federal jobs could undermine the performance of government. Private firms, they argued, must turn a profit to survive and therefore have incentives to institute shortcuts in the performance of governmental duties at the expense of U.S. citizens. Many federal jobs, Progressives pointed out, were created in large part because the private sector was unable to adequately perform those duties (such as road-building, protecting consumers, and regulating environmental polluters). On a close vote of 205-211, the Hastings amendment was struck down and the funding for agencies to identify federal jobs that could be privatized remained in the underlying appropriations bill. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Treasury Department from Finalizing Rules Which Would Encourage Companies to Transition from Defined-Benefit to Cash Balance Pension Plans. In July of 2003, a federal judge ruled in Cooper v. IBM that so-called cash balance pension plans were age-discriminatory because those plans favored younger workers over their older colleagues. While defined-benefit retirement plans offer employees a guaranteed and fixed benefit upon retirement based on length of service and compensation, cash balance plans take a percentage from employees' paychecks for investment in a company-managed retirement account. In light of Enron's collapse and the thousands of Enron employees whose cash retirement accounts were wiped out, many lawmakers on Capitol Hill have advocated for stronger regulations on employee pension accounts. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Representative Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment which would prevent the Treasury Department from finalizing new rules encouraging companies to adopt cash balance pension plans. Progressives supported the Sanders amendment. In their view, cash balance pension plans are risky and can be manipulated by companies. In the IBM case cited above, IBM employees brought a lawsuit against the company after their cash balance pension accounts were cut by fifty percent for no apparent reason. In another case of pension manipulation, Enron prevented its employees from selling their Enron stock, which comprised most of the value of their pension accounts, even as the failed energy company headed toward bankruptcy. Employee pensions, Progressives argued, should be protected from manipulations and volatile market conditions which may erode or eliminate their retirement accounts (and especially the retirement accounts of older workers who may need their pensions in the short term). Conservatives generally favor cash balance plans and voted in opposition to the Sanders amendment. In their view, cash balance plans can earn employees a higher rate a return and offer greater financial protection than can defined benefit plans. On a vote of 258-160, the Sanders amendment was adopted and language was added to the House version of the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill to prohibit the Treasury Department from finalizing rules which would encourage company's to shift to cash balance pension plans. (A similar provision was not included in the Senate version of the legislation; to become law, then, the Sanders amendment must survive conference committee negotiations between the House and the Senate, must be included in the conference report, and must be signed by the president.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Remove Caps on Remittances to Cuba. Current U.S. law restricts Americans from sending money to any family members who live in Cuba. For instance, if a U.S. citizen gives more than the legal limit of $1,200 per year to his/her family member(s) in Cuba, then that individual can be fined up to $55,000 and face 10 years in federal prison. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Representative Delahunt (D-MA) offered an amendment to revoke funding for any enforcement activities of the U.S. government aimed at prosecuting Americans for sending financial assistance to their family members in Cuba. Progressives endorsed Delahunt's amendment. In their view, the current law needlessly punishes those Cuban families who rely on financial assistance from relatives in the U.S. and has also failed to undermine the Castro regime (the restriction on remittances to Cuba was enacted with the goal of weakening Castro's regime). Conservatives opposed Delahunt's amendment and argued that removing the caps on remittances would, in effect, allow the Castro regime to pocket more U.S. money and strengthen the dictator's hold on power. On a vote of 222-196, the Delahunt amendment was adopted and the cap on remittances to Cuba was eliminated from the underlying appropriations bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Enforcement of a Travel Ban to Cuba. For the past 43 years, U.S. law has forbidden Americans from traveling to Cuba. In recent years, however, support for the travel ban has waned. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Congressman Flake (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to revoke funding for any enforcement activities of the U.S. government aimed at preventing or prosecuting Americans for traveling to Cuba. (In effect, then, Flake's amendment would open Cuba to American tourists.) Progressives voted in support of Flake's measure because, in their view, the travel ban was a needless restriction on personal liberty and an ineffective means of undermining the Castro regime. The travel ban and economic embargo on Cuba, they pointed out, have failed to topple Castro's regime. A better way to democratize the communist country, Progressives argued, was to allow Americans to travel to Cuba, converse with Cubans, and thereby spread democratic ideals within Cuba. Conservatives objected to Flake's proposal; in their view, the best way to undermine the Castro regime is to maintain an economic and travel embargo on that country. On a vote of 227-188, the Flake amendment was adopted and enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba was eliminated from the House version of the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill. (While Flake's amendment has passed the House several times in recent years, each time it has been dropped in conference committee on account of a threatened veto by President Bush, a supporter of the travel ban.) HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Require that Amtrak Routes Recoup at Least Fifty Percent of Expenses to Remain Operational. A major source of contention during debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill involved funding for Amtrak, a federally-funded and operated railway. In the view of Progressives, Amtrak provides an important means of transportation for lower-income individuals who cannot afford to fly or who do not own automobiles. Conservatives, conversely, generally view Amtrak as an inefficient use of taxpayer money and favor privatizing the railway. During debate on the appropriations measure, Congressman Sessions (R-TX) offered an amendment which would have eliminated all Amtrak routes that do not recoup at least fifty cents of every dollar spent to operate the route. Conservatives supported the Sessions amendment as a way to reduce the most inefficient routes operated by Amtrak. Progressives opposed the amendment and pointed out that the Sessions proposal, if adopted, would effectively eliminate all of Amtrak's long-distance routes (while many of Amtrak's short distance routes are profitable-such as rail service between Washington, D.C., New York City, and Boston, MA-its long distance routes tend to lose money and thus require taxpayer subsidies to remain operational). Democrats voted overwhelmingly in opposition to the Sessions amendment, the measure was defeated 130-282, and the requirement that Amtrak routes recoup at least fifty percent of expenses to remain operational was not included in the underlying appropriations bill. ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote to Reduce Spending in the Underlying Appropriation Bill by One Percent. During debate on the 2004 appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, Representative Hefley (R-CO) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the total amount of spending contained in the bill ($7.9 billion) by one percent. Hefley, who proposed making similar across-the-board reductions on other spending bills, argued that a one percent cut in federal spending would reduce the projected 2004 deficit by twenty-five percent. Progressives (and a great many Republicans) voted against Hefley's amendment and pointed out that the 2004 DC spending bill is already 8.4 percent less then the amount received by the District in 2003. Further cuts, Progressives argued, would seriously undermine important federal programs that benefit DC residents (such as health, housing, and education-related programs). On a vote of 116-284, Hefley's amendment was defeated and the one percent spending cut was not applied to the 2004 DC spending bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote to Strike a Private School Voucher Program from the Underlying Bill. On roll call vote 478, the vote immediately preceding this vote, an amendment offered by Congressman Davis (R-VA) to create a $10 million private school voucher program in the District of Columbia was narrowly adopted by a 205-203 margin. The subject of this vote was an amendment drafted by Congresswoman Norton (D-DC) which would have stripped the Davis amendment from the underlying 2004 District of Columbia appropriation bill. In the view of Progressives, private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. The Davis amendment, they argued, would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher provided in Davis's amendment would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs (which often exceed $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would be the likely beneficiaries of private school vouchers. Conversely, in the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in a poor public school but would, with a voucher, be able to attend a private school. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. On a vote of 203-203, the Norton amendment was defeated (legislation is defeated when a tie vote occurs) and the DC private school voucher program remained in the underlying appropriations bill. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote to Create a $10 Million Private School Voucher Program in DC. Debate on the 2004 District of Columbia appropriations bill-a $7.9 billion spending bill which funds public services, programs, and government agencies in the District of Columbia-was generally consensual except for one policy initiative: school vouchers. The subject of this vote was an amendment offered by Congressman Davis (R-VA) which would create a $10 million school voucher program in the District whereby eligible elementary or secondary school students would receive $7500 to transfer from public to private schools. In the view of Progressives, private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. Additionally, Progressives argued, the Davis amendment would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs (which often exceed $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would be the main beneficiaries of private school vouchers. Conversely, in the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in a poor public school but who would, with a voucher, be able to attend a private school. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. By a narrow margin of 205-203, the Davis amendment was adopted and the DC school voucher program was included in the underlying District of Columbia appropriations bill. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congressman Cooper (D-TN) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment instead of making them wait. Additionally, Cooper's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Cooper's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 186-210. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
H R 6. Energy Plan/Motion to Instruct House Conferees to Expand Regulatory Powers of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Early in 2003, the House Energy Committee crafted legislation outlining a national energy plan. In many respects, the 2003 energy plan was similar to legislation drafted by Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001. The 2001 legislation was defeated in conference committee because the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on issues such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); similar challenges to passage confront the 2003 energy plan as it heads to a conference committee (conference negotiations to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the energy bill were scheduled to begin on September 5, 2003). Progressives opposed key aspects of the 2003 energy plan, including: 1) provisions which would allowing oil-drilling in ANWR; 2) the absence of investment in renewable energy sources; and 3) the inclusion of tax breaks for fossil-fuel energy producers. Conservatives supported the 2003 energy plan based on their view that a greater emphasis on domestic oil production was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in ANWR and providing tax breaks to U.S. oil producers, Conservatives argued, were necessary steps to spur domestic oil production. On this vote, Congressman Dingell (D-MI) motioned to instruct the House of Representatives' conferees to resolve differences in the House and Senate versions of the legislation pertaining to electricity reliability by September 12, 2003. Specifically, in light of the widespread power outages in the Northeast and Midwest in August 2003, Dingell (and Progressives) wanted to speed the creation and implementation of so-called regional transmission organizations (RTO's) across the nation to regulate utility companies and enforce electricity reliability rules (RTO's would be managed my the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC). Progressives voted for Dingell's motion to instruct as a way to help solidify passage of RTO's as a free-standing bill; even if other aspects of the House and Senate energy plans could not be reconciled in conference committee negotiations, Progressives hoped that agreement could be reached on the creation of RTO's (the two versions of the energy plan contained similar (reconcilable) provisions regarding RTO's). Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct based on their view that less regulation, and not more regulation, was the best solution to insure that energy markets generally, and electricity generation specifically, functioned properly and reliably. On a party-line vote of 176-211, Dingell's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to adopt regional transmission organizations during conference committee negotiations with the Senate. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2989 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2989 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2989 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2989 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2989 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2989 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2989 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 351 Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2989, Departments of Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act, 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 351 Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2989, Departments of Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act, 2004 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Fully-Fund a Program Which Provides Shelter and Transitional Housing Arrangements to the Homeless. One function of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is to provide shelter and transitional housing arrangements to homeless individuals. The 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a measure to fund veterans' affairs (VA) programs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-included $83 million less than the amount requested by President Bush for homelessness assistance programs. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) introduced an amendment which would have increased funding for homelessness programs by $83 million in accordance with the President's original budget request. Progressives voted in favor of Lee's amendment because, in their view, Congress has a duty to insure that homeless individuals are protected from the elements and are provided options to help them find permanent living arrangements. A solid majority of Democrats voted in favor of Lee's amendment but the measure encountered stiff opposition from Republicans and was rejected 192-232. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Increase Funding for Environmental Cleanup Activities. Environmental cleanup is coordinated on the federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using money generated from Superfund (a public trust fund that generates revenue based on the "polluter pays" principle in addition to its congressional funding allocations). Since President Bush took office in January 2001, however, the number of Superfund cleanup efforts has steadily declined. In an effort to spur a more concerted effort by the EPA to advance environmental cleanup activities, Congressman Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment to the 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a spending bill which includes funding for the EPA-which would have increased the Superfund budget by $115 million. Progressives voted in favor of Markey's amendment because, in their view, the EPA under the Bush Administration has abdicated its responsibility to restore the nation's most environmentally-damaged areas to their original form; the additional money in Markey's proposal, they argued, would allow the EPA to initiate environmental cleanup efforts at more Superfund sites. The additional funding for Superfund included in Markey's amendment, however, would have been paid for by an equal reduction in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) budget. Democrats were split almost evenly on the Markey amendment because many Democratic lawmakers did not want to reduce NASA's budget; doing so, they argued, would seriously hamper NASA's operations. Republicans voted overwhelmingly against Markey's proposal and, with Democrats almost equally divided on the issue, the measure was defeated on a 114-309 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Increase Funding for Low-Income Housing Vouchers; Vouchers Which Are Made Available to the Poor to Secure Housing. One of the many duties of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is to foster affordable housing in the nation's urban areas. During debate on the 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a measure to provide funding for veterans' programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), NASA, the EPA, and other federal programs and independent agencies-Congressman Nadler (D-NY) offered an amendment to increase the amount of funding in HUD's budget for low-income housing vouchers by $150 million (bringing the total allocation for the voucher program to $12.3 billion). Progressives endorsed Nadler's proposal as a way to help low-income families afford a home and also to prevent families from being forced out of their community due to rising rent prices. Twenty-four Republicans joined a solid majority of Democrats in supporting Nadler's amendment and the measure was adopted on a 217-208 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HOUSING— Funding for Housing Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Cut Funding for AmeriCorps and Use a Portion of that Money for Veterans' Medical Research. During debate on the 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a measure to provide funding for veterans' programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, NASA, the EPA, and other federal programs and independent agencies-Congressman Stearns (R-FL) proposed an amendment which would have cut $12 million in the bill for AmeriCorps and increased funding for veterans' medical and prosthetic research by $5 million. Progressives voted against the amendment despite their support for the additional funding for veterans' medical research as a way to protect the AmeriCorps program from budget cuts. In the view of Progressives, AmeriCorps volunteers play an invaluable role in providing important services and support for the least-advantaged citizens in the U.S. as well as impoverished individuals living abroad. With Republicans divided on the amendment and strong opposition from Democrats, the Stearns proposal was rejected 154-264. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Funding for Veterans' Programs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is, in essence, an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. On this vote, Republican Leaders sought passage of the rules for debate on the 2004 Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appropriations bill. The VA-HUD appropriations bill also funds NASA, the EPA, and other federal programs and independent agencies. Progressives voted against the rule based on their opposition to the underlying bill. Despite its overall price tag of $122.7 billion, Progressives pointed out that the money included in the bill for veterans was $2 billion less than the amount set by Congress in its 2004 budget resolution (a budget resolution is legislation which sets forth congressional spending priorities for the upcoming Congress). In their view, veterans' programs should receive the full amount of funding which Congress had already approved as necessary. In fact, the perceived lack of funding in the bill for veterans prompted a confrontation between Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Smith (R-NJ) and the Republican Leadership prior to the bill's consideration on the House floor; Republican leaders even threatened to revoke Smith's Chairmanship if he failed to support the bill in accord with the Republican leadership. In the end, Republican leaders where able to hold their caucus together and the rule was adopted 229-196. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/ Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, four other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 446, and 447). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congressman Bishop (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Bishop's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Bishop's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 202-221. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 339 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2859, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2003 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, four other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 446, and 449). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congresswoman Solis (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Solis's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Solis's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 206-216. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, four other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 447, and 449). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Ross (D-AR) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Ross's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Ross's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 202-214. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
H.R. 2427. Importation of Prescription Drugs/Vote to Allow the Importation of Less-Expensive Prescription Drugs. Many prescription drugs that are sold in Canada and other countries are less expensive than identical drugs sold in the U.S. Domestic trade laws, however, forbid U.S. companies and citizens from purchasing imported drugs and, as a result, Americans often pay more for their prescription drugs than individuals in other countries. To take advantage of cheaper drugs sold outside of the U.S., many Americans in recent years have crossed the border into Canada to purchase less-expensive prescription drugs; those who require costly prescription drugs on a daily basis have saved thousands of dollars though these Canadian drug excursions. On several occasions, Senator Dorgan (D-ND) has even chartered buses for the sole purpose of transporting senior citizens into Canada to allow those seniors to take advantage of Canada's cheaper prescription drugs. On June 20, 2003, the Senate adopted an amendment during a broader debate on prescription drug coverage to allow the importation of prescription drugs from abroad (see Senate Vote #232). The subject of this vote was final passage in the House of a similar bill to grant Americans access to cheaper prescription drugs from other countries. Progressives supported the measure for two main reasons: 1) as a way to help Americans afford the prescription drugs they need to stay healthy; and 2) to guard against alleged price-gouging by U.S. drug manufacturers. On a vote of 243-186, the House bill was adopted. The next step in the legislative process will be to convene a conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. Then, upon House and Senate approval of the conference version, the final version of the legislation would be sent to President Bush for his signature or veto. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Would Reauthorize Head Start Funding, Allow Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program to Use Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers, and Devolve Federal Power to Eight States in Making Determinations of How Federal Head Start Money Should Be Spent. The subject of this vote was final passage of legislation to reauthorize Head Start-a federal program which provides early childhood education to over 900,000 low-income children. Progressives voted against final passage based on their objections to the bill. Specifically, Progressives opposed a provision in the bill allowing religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to use religion as a factor when assessing the job qualifications of new teachers; in their view, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory and illegal. Progressives also opposed a section in the Republican bill which would create an eight-state pilot program in which those eight states would receive federal Head Start money with no strings attached; those states, in other words, could use the money however they saw fit. Progressives viewed the pilot program as a de facto block grant which intended to devolve federal power over the Head Start program to the states. Devolving programmatic and expenditure decisions over the Head Start program to the states, Progressives argued, would enable states to use federal Head Start money for purposes other than Head Start at the expense of the education of low-income children. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the Head Start reauthorization but, by a razor-thin margin, the measure was adopted 217-216. The deciding vote was cast by Representative Sullivan (R-OK) who, at the urging of Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), was brought to the House floor against doctor's orders. Before DeLay's call, Sullivan had been recuperating in bed from injuries he sustained in a car accident on July 23. The Oklahoma Representative, clad in a tee-shirt, shorts, and sandals, was pushed by an aide to the House floor in a wheelchair where he cast the deciding vote in favor of the Head Start reauthorization bill after Republican Leaders had prolonged the vote by ten minutes to accommodate Sullivan. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Would Allow Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program to Use Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers And Would Allow States, And Not the Federal Government, to Determine How Federal Head Start Money Should Be Spent. One of the few procedural prerogatives available to opponents of a piece of legislation is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a bill to committee and is usually a deathblow to the legislation. During debate on Republican-drafted legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program-a federal program which provides early childhood education to over 900.000 low-income children-Representative Grijalva (D-AZ) motioned to recommit the bill to committee based on objections raised by Democrats during the course of debate. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed a provision in the Republican bill which would allow religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to use religion as a factor when assessing the job qualifications of new teachers. In their view, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory, illegal, and should not be tolerated. Progressives also opposed a section in the Republican bill which would create an eight-state pilot program in which those eight states would receive federal funds and be allowed to use those funds as they saw fit. Progressives viewed the pilot program as a de facto block grant which intended to devolve federal power over the Head Start program to the states. Devolving programmatic and expenditure decisions over the Head Start program to the states, Progressives argued, would enable states to use the federal Head Start money for purposes other than Head Start at the expense of the education of low-income children. Based on these two objections, Progressives voted to recommit the Head Start reauthorization to committee but, on a nearly party-line vote of 203-227, the motion was defeated and the Head Start bill was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote on Democratic Version of Head Start Legislation Which, In Contrast to the Republican Bill, Would Not Allow Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program from Using Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers And Would Maintain the Federal Government's Power in Determining How Federal Head Start Money Should Be Spent. During debate on legislation to reauthorize spending on Head Start-a federal program which provides early childhood education to over 900.000 low-income children-Congressman Miller (D-CA) offered a substitute bill on behalf of the minority party which addressed two major concerns voiced by Democrats over the Republican-drafted Head Start reauthorization bill. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed language in the Republican bill which would allow religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to use religion as a factor when assessing the job qualifications of new teachers. In the view of Progressives, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory. Progressives also opposed another provision in the Republican bill which would create an eight-state pilot program in which those eight states would receive federal funds and be allowed to use those funds as they saw fit. Progressives viewed the pilot program as a de facto block grant which intended to devolve federal power to the states and thereby reduce the role of the federal government in determining how Head Start money should be spent. Progressives voted in favor of the Democratic version of the reauthorization bill because it did not include the two provisions described above which they opposed. On a vote of 200-229, the Democratic substitute bill was defeated. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote to Prevent Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program from Using Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers. The federally-funded Head Start program provides early childhood education for more than 900,000 low-income children. Like many other federal spending initiatives (such as elementary and secondary education), the Head Start program requires that Congress periodically reauthorize how Head Start money should be spent. During debate on a Head Start reauthorization bill, Congresswoman Woolsey (D-CA) introduced an amendment which would have deleted a provision contained in the Republican-drafted measure which allowed religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to consider religion as a factor when hiring new teachers. The same provision was included in President Bush's "faith-based" initiative which, to date, has stalled in Congress. In the view of Progressives, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory and they voted in favor of Woolsey's amendment to strike the faith-based provision from the reauthorization bill. Four Republicans voted with an overwhelming majority of Democrats in support of Woolsey's amendment but the measure was defeated 199-231 and the faith-based provision remained in the reauthorization bill. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
H.R. 2738. U.S.-Chile Trade/Vote on Final Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Chile The subject of this vote was final passage of a free trade bill between the U.S. and Chile. Progressives opposed the trade bill for two main reasons. First, in their view, the trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Progressives pointed out that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite opposition from Progressives, the U.S.-Chile free trade measure was adopted by the House on a 270-156 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
H.R. 2738. U.S.-Chile Trade/Procedural Vote to Prevent Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Chile. In an effort to prevent final passage of the U.S.-Chile free trade bill, Congressman McDermott (D-WA) motioned to reconsider the previous vote (Roll Call Vote #434) and thereby allow opponents of the legislation a second opportunity to defeat the measure. The previous vote involved the third and final reading of the U.S.-Chile free trade bill. According to House rules, legislation needs to be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation. Progressives supported McDermott's motion based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, the free trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (such as the proposal at issue here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. On this vote, Representative Crane (R-IL) motioned to table (strike down) McDermott's motion to prevent the third reading of the bill and thereby defeat the legislation. Progressives voted against Crane's motion to table based on their opposition to the trade bill (and their support for McDermott's motion) but the motion to table was upheld 276-152 and the trade bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 434 |
H.R. 2738. U.S.-Chile Trade/Procedural Vote to Proceed to a Final Vote on a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Chile. House rules require that legislation be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third (and final) reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation (usually the title of the bill, and not entire document, is read by the clerk of the House). The subject of this vote was the third reading of legislation to encourage free trade between the U.S. and Chile. Progressives voted against the pro-forma third reading (in an effort to prevent final passage of the bill) based on their objections to the underlying legislation (arguments against the U.S.-Chile free trade bill mirror those presented in opposition to the U.S.-Singapore free trade bill (see Roll Call Vote #432); in fact, both pieces of legislation were called up for debate at the same time). In the view of Progressives, the U.S.-Chile trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Progressives also contended that free-trade agreements encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite their objections to the free trade bill, the third reading was allowed on a 299-129 vote and the legislation was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
H.R. 2739. U.S.-Singapore Trade/Vote on Final Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Singapore. The subject of this vote was final passage of a free trade bill between the U.S. and Singapore. Progressives voted to defeat the trade bill for two main reasons. First, in their view, the trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Progressives contended that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (such as the proposal at issue here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite opposition from Progressives, the trade measure was adopted by the House on a 272-155 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
H.R. 2739. U.S.-Singapore Trade/Procedural Vote to Prevent Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Singapore. In a second effort to prevent final passage of a free trade bill between the U.S. and Singapore, Congressman Levin (D-MI) motioned to reconsider the previous vote (Roll Call Vote #430) and thereby allow opponents of the legislation another opportunity to defeat the measure. The previous vote involved the third and final reading of the free trade bill. According to House rules, legislation needs to be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation. Progressives opposed the U.S.-Singapore free trade bill for two main reasons. First, in their view, the trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (such as the proposal at issue here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. On this vote, Representative Crane (R-IL) motioned to table (strike down) Levin's motion to prevent the third reading of the bill and thereby defeat the measure. Progressives voted against Crane's motion to table based on their opposition to the trade bill (and their support for Levin's motion) but the motion to table was upheld 269-153 and the trade bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
H.R. 2739. U.S.-Singapore Trade/Procedural Vote to Proceed to a Final Vote on a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Singapore. According to House rules, legislation needs to be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third (and final) reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation. The subject of this vote was the third reading of legislation to encourage free trade between the U.S. and Singapore. Progressives voted against the pro-forma third reading (in an effort to prevent final passage of the bill) based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, the U.S.-Singapore trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Additionally, Progressives contended that free-trade agreements (like the proposal under consideration here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite their objections to the bill, the third reading was allowed on a 309-114 vote and the legislation was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Cut All Financial Assistance to Saudi Arabia; A Country Which, Progressives Argued, Contributed to the September 11th Attacks. On this vote, Representative Weiner (D-NY) proposed to strike from the 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill all financial assistance to Saudi Arabia. During debate on his proposal, Weiner argued that the Saudi government did not deserve U.S. funds because of its role in the September 11th attacks. To support his claim, Weiner cited intelligence information which demonstrated that the Saudi government had harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers, provided cash grants to two other hijackers, and failed to freeze Osama bin Laden's accounts until a month after the 9/11 attacks occurred. Progressives voted in favor of Weiner's amendment because, in their view, the Saudi government could not be trusted to crack down on terrorism and should therefore not receive U.S. aid. The 191-231 vote on the Weiner amendment significantly divided each of the two parties but the measure was nonetheless rejected and U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia remained in the underlying spending bill. WAR & PEACE— Relations with Saudi Arabia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Transfer $75 Million in the Spending Bill from Counter-Narcotics Missions in Colombia to Programs to Combat the Global Spread of AIDS. The major source of contention during debate on the 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill involved the specific amount of money the U.S. should provide to combat the global spread of AIDS and treat those infected with the virus. The subject of this vote was an amendment by Congressman McGovern (D-MA) which would have transferred $75 million contained in the spending bill for counterdrug activities in Colombia into programs to combat the AIDS virus and provide treatments for AIDS victims. Progressives voted in support of McGovern's measure because, in their view, efforts to halt the spread of AIDS and alleviate the pain and suffering of those already infected with the virus are more important than counter-narcotics missions in Colombia. During the debate on his amendment, McGovern pointed out that U.S. aid to Colombia had failed to curtail the production of cocaine in that country; in fact, McGovern noted, cocaine production continued to increase despite the multi-billion dollar U.S. drug war against Colombian cocaine. On a vote of 195-226, the McGovern amendment was struck down and the transfer of money from counterdrug missions to AIDS programs contained in the bill did not occur. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International WAR & PEACE— Military Aid to Colombia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Add $300 Million in the Spending Bill for AIDS Programs. During debate on the 2004 foreign operations appropriations bills-a spending bill to provide $17.2 billion in funding for purposes such as foreign military financing and programs to combat the global spread of AIDS-Representative Kilpatrick (D-MI) offered an amendment which would have increased the amount in the bill for HIV/AIDS programs by $300 million. Progressives voted in support of Kilpatrick's measure because, in their view, the U.S. should be playing a more active role in combating the AIDS pandemic. Republicans contended that enough money was already contained in the spending bill for AIDS programs and voted against Kilpatrick's amendment. By a vote of 192-228, the Kilpatrick amendment was rejected and the additional $300 million for AIDS programs was not included in the spending package. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee than is the case normally). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. This vote was a second attempt to rise from the Committee of the Whole during debate on the 2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill; this time the motion was offered by Representative Jackson (D-IL). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives wanted the opportunity to debate an amendment drafted by Congresswoman Lowey (D-NY) which, if passed, would have fully funded President Bush's Global AIDS Initiative (under the current rules of debate, Lowey's amendment was not allowed to be considered on the House floor). In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged to contribute $3 billion in each of the next five years to combat the AIDS pandemic. The underlying spending bill, however, included only $2 billion of the president's $3 billion commitment to fight AIDS, a funding deficiency which Progressives hoped to correct though passage of Lowey's amendment. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 63-342 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill remained intact. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill. High levels of partisanship have been a major feature of legislative politics in the 107th Congress. Both House and Senate Democrats (both in the minority party) have argued that Republican leaders in Congress have prevented meaningful debate on a host of issues ranging from the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security to extending the child tax credit to low income families. At issue here is another piece of legislation in which debate on the floor of the House was excessively restricted. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. On this vote, Congresswoman DeLauro (D-CT) motioned to rise from the Committee on the Whole. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives wanted the opportunity to debate an amendment drafted by Congresswoman Lowey (D-NY) which, if passed, would have fully funded President Bush's Global AIDS Initiative (under the current rules of debate, Lowey's amendment was not allowed to be considered on the House floor). In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged to contribute $3 billion in each of the next five years to combat the AIDS pandemic. The underlying spending bill, however, included only $2 billion of the president's $3 billion commitment to fight AIDS, a funding deficiency which Progressives hoped to correct though passage of Lowey's amendment. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 84-318 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill remained intact. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Restrict the Number of Death Penalty Convictions. Representative Rush (D-IL), during consideration of an appropriations bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, introduced an amendment which would have barred the use of federal funds to carry out the sentencing phase of any trial in which federal prosecutors sought the death penalty. Rush was quick to point out that his amendment would not overturn the legality of the death penalty. Instead, Rush intended to cut back on the number of death penalty convictions in a round-about way by withholding federal funds during the sentencing phase of a trial in which the death penalty was sought. Progressives voted in support of Rush's amendment based on their opposition to the death penalty. In their view, a government should not have the power to sentence its citizens to death. Moreover, Progressives argued, many death penalty convictions are fraught with injustices; minorities, for instance, are far more likely to receive the ultimate punishment than are whites. In addition, many convicts who had been put to death were later found to be innocent based on DNA evidence (by then, of course, it was too late). Despite support from Progressives, both a majority of Democrats and an overwhelming number of Republicans voted against the Rush amendment and the measure to restrict the number of death penalty convictions was defeated 85-339. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Federal Government from Interfering With State Laws that have Decriminalized the Use of Medical Marijuana. Ten states in recent years have enacted laws-either through their state legislatures or through ballot propositions to voters-to decriminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes (those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). The federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), however, has rejected the legality of state medical marijuana laws and has filed criminal charges against numerous individuals and business establishments in those ten states for the possession or distribution of medicinal marijuana. In the view of Progressives, marijuana should be tolerated for medicinal purposes because, according to a study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the drug has been found to be effective in treating the symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Representative Hinchey (D-NY) offered an amendment which would have prevented the federal government from interfering with the implementation of state laws that authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Progressives voted in favor of Hinchey's amendment but the measure was rejected 152-273. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Justice Department From Enforcing the Separation of Powers Between the Church and State in the Alabama Case Involving the Placement of a Monument of the Ten Commandments in the State's Supreme Court Building. In a clash between religious principles and constitutional law, Roy Moore, Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court, refused a court order issued by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in 2002 to hide from public view a monument of the Ten Commandments which had been prominently displayed in Alabama's state supreme court building since 2001 (Moore has since been removed from his judicial duties). In the view of Progressives, the monument violated the Constitution's ban on the government's endorsement of a particular religious doctrine. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Hostettler (R-IN) proposed an amendment to block the Justice Department from enforcing the ruling which required the removal of the 5,280-pound monument from Alabama's supreme court building. Progressives voted against the Hostettler amendment because, in their view, the monument of the Ten Commandments violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. Despite their objections, the Hostettler amendment was adopted by the House on a 260-161 vote. The Senate, however, failed to adopt similar language and the Hostettler amendment therefore failed to become law. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote to Defeat a Motion to Reconsider (Hold Another Vote On) the Rules of Debate on Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore) Which, Progressives Argued, Failed to Allocate Sufficient Time for House Floor Consideration. In a previous vote (Roll Call Vote #415), rules governing debate on two free trade agreements-one between the U.S. and Chile and the other between the U.S. and Singapore-were adopted. In the view of Progressives, the two hours provided in the rules for debate on both measures was an insufficient amount of time for them to detail their objections to the two trade agreements. Progressives opposed the trade agreements on several grounds. First, they argued, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives contended that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Third, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to harvest commodities in pristine natural environments. In an effort to allow more time to debate those issues, Representative Hastings (D-FL) motioned reconsider the previous vote on the rules governing debate on the two trade bills. On this vote, Congressman Dreier (R-CA) motioned to table (strike down) the Hastings motion to reconsider (hold another vote on) the rules of debate. Progressives voted in opposition to the tabling motion in an effort to uphold the Hastings motion and impel Republicans to provide additional time for debate on the trade agreements. On a nearly party-line vote of 228-197, Dreier's tabling motion was adopted, the Hastings motion was therefore defeated, and the previous vote on the rules of debate (Roll Call Vote #413) were sustained. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote on Rules of Debate on Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore) Which, Progressives Argued, Failed to Allocate Sufficient Time for House Floor Consideration. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which acts, in essence, as an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on two free trade agreements; one agreement intended to promote trade between the U.S. and Chile and the other agreement involved free trade between the U.S. and Singapore. Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the trade agreements. In the view of Progressives, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Secondly, Progressives argued that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Additionally, Progressives contended that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities in pristine natural environments. Progressives also voiced objections specific to the rule; in their view, the two-hour allotment of time provided in the rule for debate on both trade measures was insufficient to allow a vibrant discussion of the issues surrounding free trade agreements (see Roll Call Vote #416). Despite their objections to the rule, it was adopted 281-144 and the two trade agreements were scheduled for debate on the House floor. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote to Defeat a Motion to Prevent the Consideration of Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore). In a previous vote (Roll Call Vote #413), two free trade agreements-one between the U.S. and Chile and the other between the U.S. and Singapore-cleared a procedural hurdle and were allowed to proceed in the legislative process. Before those bills could be debated upon on the House floor, however, rules for debate needed to be adopted to set guidelines for floor consideration. Progressives objected to the rules of debate on those two trade measures because, in their view, the two-hours allotted in the rule for the consideration of both bills on the House floor (the bills were to be considered simultaneously) provided insufficient time to adequately debate issues of free trade such as labor and environmental protections and the potential loss of U.S. jobs those trade agreements may cause. Based on their concern for the limited amount of time available for debate, Representative Hastings (D-FL) motioned reconsider (hold another vote on) the previous vote to proceed to the trade bills. The subject of this vote was a motion offered by Congressman Dreier (R-CA) to table (strike down) the Hastings motion to reconsider the previous vote to proceed. Progressives voted in opposition to the tabling motion in an effort to uphold the Hastings motion and impel Republicans to provide additional time for debate on the trade agreements. On a nearly party-line vote of 223-201, Dreier's tabling motion was adopted, the Hastings motion was therefore defeated, and the motion to proceed to the trade bills (Roll Call Vote #413) was sustained. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore). On July 31, 2003, the Senate adopted two separate bills intended to promote free trade between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question to allow consideration of those two trade bills in the House. Progressives voted in opposition to both trade agreements on three grounds. First, they argued, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives noted that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Third, Progressives contended that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities in pristine natural environments. For these reasons, Progressives voted against the motion to proceed to the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade bills. On a nearly party-line vote of 226-200, the motion to move the previous question was adopted and the two trade bills were allowed to proceed in the legislative process. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment Designed to Protect U.S. Farmers, Workers, and Businesses from the Adverse Effects of Free Trade Agreements with Central American Countries. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Levin (D-MI) proposed an amendment which would have prevented the U.S. from entering into any free trade agreement with a Central American country that failed to: 1) protect U.S. copyrights from patent infringements; 2) ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural goods; and 3) uphold fair labor standards. Progressives voted in favor of Levin's proposal because, in their view, free trade should be a two-way street; allowing foreign countries to circumvent U.S. copyright laws, block the sale of U.S. agricultural products in their country, or fail to uphold labor agreements, Progressives argued, unfairly penalized American businesses, farmers, and laborers. Representative Kolbe (R-AZ) raised a point of order against the Levin amendment on the grounds that the measure constituted legislation in an appropriations bill (appropriations bills are considered privileged matters in the House and Senate; amendments to spending bills which are not deemed germane (relevant) to the pending legislation can be subject to a point of order). The subject of this vote was a motion to sustain Kolbe's point of order against the Levin amendment. Although Progressives voted against the point of order based on their support for Levin's amendment, Kolbe's objection was sustained 231-198, Levin's amendment was defeated, and the trade protections for U.S. workers and businesses were not included in the underlying spending bill. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
H. Res. 330. Disapproval of Conduct/Vote to Reprimand Chairman Thomas (R-CA) for Ordering Capitol Police to Remove Committee Democrats from a Markup Session in the Committee on Ways and Means. During a particularly acrimonious markup session on pension savings legislation (H.R. 1776), Representative Thomas (R-CA), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ordered the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from a library adjoining the committee room after verbal sparring broke out between him and Representative Pete Stark (D-CA). Democrats had retreated to the library from the committee room to plot strategy on the bill in response to what they characterized as bully-tactics by Chairman Thomas. After Democrats had left the Capitol Building under duress-and therefore were unable to amend the committee version of the pension bill-the Republican committee members passed the pension savings legislation and reported the measure to the House for a floor vote. Democrats, including Progressives, voiced outrage that Chairman Thomas would call upon the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from the markup session and then vote the legislation out of committee without Democrats present (a markup session refers to committee negotiations over the contents of legislation). In response to the brouhaha, Democrats drafted a resolution to admonish the Chairman for his strong-arm tactics and to protest that the pension legislation was not reported to the House floor in a valid manner. On this vote, Majority Leader DeLay (R-TX) motioned to table (strike down) the Democrats' resolution of disapproval. Progressives voted against the tabling motion because, in their view, the actions of Chairman Thomas illegitimately prevented Democrats from participating in the markup session and the chairman should therefore be reprimanded. On a straight party-line vote, the tabling motion was carried 223-193 and Chairman Thomas's actions were not punished. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Cut Federal Funding to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies if Those Agencies Fail to Provide Citizenship or Immigration Information to the Department of Homeland Security. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Tancredo (R-CO) offered an amendment which would have denied federal law enforcement funding to any state or local government that failed to transmit information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status to or from the Department of Homeland Security. Progressives opposed Tancredo's amendment and pointed out that laws were already on the books-such as the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996-which required information-sharing among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Moreover, Progressives argued, Tancredo's attempt to revoke federal funding for local or state law enforcement was irresponsible and harsh. In their view, Congress should promote cooperation, and not conflict, among the levels of the law enforcement bureaucracy. An overwhelming number of Democrats voted against the Tancredo amendment and, with Republicans divided on the vote, the Tancredo amendment was torpedoed 122-305. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Uphold the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by Preventing Law Enforcement From Conducting Searches Without a Warrant. One provision in the 2001 U.S. PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement the power to conduct searches without first obtaining a warrant. These "sneak-and-peak" searches, proponents argue, are needed to protect the country from terrorist activities. In the view of Progressives, conducting searches without a warrant violates individual protections from illegal search and seizure as codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. During consideration of the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Representative Otter (R-ID) introduced a measure which would have prevented the government from conducting "sneak-and-peak" searches. Progressives voted in favor of Otter's amendment as a way to protect the constitutional rights of suspected criminals (obtaining a warrant requires law enforcement officials to demonstrate "probable cause" that a suspect is involved in criminal activities). Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of Otter's measure and, with Republicans divided on the issue, the amendment to prevent "sneak-and-peak" was adopted on a 309-118 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Insure a Diversity of Viewpoints in the Media by Preventing the Concentration of Media Ownership. On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a rule intended to enhance competition in media markets. One of the rules implemented by the FCC was to raise the percentage of the national television audience that could be reached by any one media conglomerate from 35 percent to 45 percent. Progressives condemned the FCC's ruling and argued that the new rule would further concentrate media ownership in the hands of a select few firms such as Disney, Viacom, and AOL-Time Warner. In the view of Progressives, the concentration of media ownership undermines the democratic process because the public receives information from fewer independent media outlets on a narrower range of topics. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Representative Hinchey (D-NY) proposed an amendment which would have prohibited a company that owns a daily newspaper in a particular media market from receiving a television or radio license in that same region. Progressives supported Hinchey's amendment as a way to prevent the concentration of media ownership and thereby insure that a diversity of viewpoints are disseminated in print, electronic, or televised form. Sixty Democrats joined a majority of Republicans in defeating the Hinchey amendment on a 174-254 vote and the FCC's rules to concentrate media ownership remained intact. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Broadcast Media HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Speech and Press |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Justice Department From Enforcing the Separation of Powers Between the Church and State in Cases Where Schoolchildren are Forced to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In June of 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (California) ruled in Newdow v. U.S. Congress that requiring schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because the phrase "one nation, under God" violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. During consideration of the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Hostettler (R-IN) offered an amendment which would have prevented the Justice Department from using funds to enforce the circuit court's ruling. Progressives voted against the Hostettler amendment because, in their view, the separation of church and state plays a vital role in protecting individuals from the creation of a state-endorsed religion. Despite opposition from Progressives, Democrats were split on the issue and the Hostettler amendment to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the ruling against recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted 307-119. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the U.S. from Re-Entering the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had worked to educate students across the globe on issues of diversity and cultural awareness. In 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan removed the U.S. from the international coalition of countries that support UNESCO and, from 1984 to 2003, the U.S. failed to rejoin the organization. The 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, however, included a provision to enable the U.S. to re-enter UNESCO. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Paul (R-TX) proposed an amendment which would have eliminated the $71 million contained in the appropriations measure to allow the U.S. to re-enter UNESCO. Progressives voted against Paul's amendment because, in their view, UNESCO plays an important international role in advocating principles of human rights, democracy, diversity, tolerance, and cultural awareness and should therefore benefit from U.S. participation and financial assistance. Democrats voted overwhelmingly against Paul's amendment and the measure was defeated 145-279, thereby insuring that the U.S. would re-enter and contribute funding to UNESCO upon passage of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill. WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. This vote was a third attempt-this time offered by Representative Kucinich (D-OH)-to rise from the Committee of the Whole during debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill. Had the motion passed, the rules of debate on the appropriations bill would have been liberalized. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives hoped to strike a provision in the spending bill which, in their view, seriously restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to prosecute firearms dealers who knowingly sell guns to convicted felons or other individuals who, by virtue of their criminal records or mental handicaps, are not legally permitted to own a firearm. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 75-307 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill remained intact. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). This vote was a second attempt by Representative Sanders (I-VT) to rise from the Committee of the Whole during debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill. As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. Had the motion passed, the rules of debate on the appropriations bill would have been liberalized. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives hoped to strike a provision in the spending bill which, in their view, seriously restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to prosecute firearms dealers who knowingly sell guns to convicted felons or other individuals who, by virtue of their criminal records or mental handicaps, are not legally permitted to own a firearm. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 84-319 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill remained intact. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill. High levels of partisanship have been a major feature of legislative politics in the 107th Congress. Both House and Senate Democrats (both in the minority party) have argued that Republican Leaders have prevented meaningful debate on a host of issues ranging from the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security to extending the child tax credit to low income families. At issue here is another piece of legislation in which debate on the floor of the House, in the view of Democrats, was excessively restricted by Republican leaders. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. On this vote, Representative Sanders (I-VT) motioned to rise from the Committee on the Whole. Had the motion passed, the rules of debate on the appropriations bill would have been liberalized. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives hoped to strike a provision in the spending bill which, in their view, seriously restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to prosecute firearms dealers who knowingly sell guns to convicted felons or other individuals who, by virtue of their criminal records or mental handicaps, are not legally permitted to own a firearm. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 77-335 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill remained intact. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Assisting Crime Impacted Communities JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Spending Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Underfunds Domestic Security Programs. Each year, Congress is required to allocate money through the appropriations process to fund federal departments and related agencies. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to allow consideration of a rule governing debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill (prior to House consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate). The 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill provided $38.6 billion in federal funding for, among other things, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. Progressives voted against the procedural motion to proceed based on their opposition to the funding levels for law enforcement, counter-terrorism activities, and other domestic security protections which were contained in the appropriations bill. In the view of Progressives, inadequacies in funding contained in the appropriations bill for domestic security reflected the recent waves of tax cuts benefiting wealthy individuals; those tax cuts, Progressives argued, have starved the government of funding for important domestic programs such as education, healthcare, and domestic security. On a nearly party-line vote of 221-199, the motion to allow consideration of the rule was adopted and the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill was allowed to proceed in the legislative process. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate in different forms and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Van Hollen (D-MD) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Van Hollen's motion to instruct had two additional provisions which were intended to: 1) prevent House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference; and 2) require completion of the conference report in a timely manner. Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Van Hollen's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). An overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor of Van Hollen's motion to instruct but the motion failed on a party-line vote of 193-212, thereby failing to obligate House conferees to adopt the Senate's language on the child tax credit legislation during conference committee negotiations. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
H. Res. 324. Disapproval of Conduct/Vote to Reprimand Chairman Thomas (R-CA) for Ordering Capitol Police to Remove Committee Democrats from a Markup Session in the Committee on Ways and Means. During a particularly heated markup session on pension savings legislation (H.R. 1776), Representative Thomas (R-CA), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ordered the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from a library adjoining the committee room after verbal sparring broke out between him and Representative Pete Stark (D-CA). Democrats had retreated to the library from the committee room to plot strategy on the bill in response to what they characterized as bully-tactics by Chairman Thomas. After Democrats had left the Capitol Building under duress-and therefore were unable to amend the committee version of the pension bill-the Republican committee members passed the pension savings legislation and reported the measure to the House for a floor vote. Democrats, including Progressives, voiced outrage that Chairman Thomas would call upon the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from the markup session and then vote the legislation out of committee without Democrats present (a markup session refers to committee negotiations over the contents of legislation). In response to the brouhaha, Democrats drafted a resolution to admonish the Chairman for his strong-arm tactics and to protest that the pension legislation was not reported to the House floor in a valid manner. On this vote, Representative McCrery (R-LA) motioned to table (strike down) the Democrats' resolution of disapproval. Progressives voted against the tabling motion because, in their view, the actions of Chairman Thomas illegitimately prevented Democrats from participating in the markup session and the chairman should therefore be reprimanded. On a straight party-line vote, the tabling motion was carried 170-143 and Chairman Thomas's actions were not punished. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate in different forms and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Bell (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Bell's motion to instruct had two additional provisions which were intended to: 1) prevent House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report; and 2) require completion of the conference report in a timely manner. Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Bell's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). An overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor of Bell's motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 188-201, thereby failing to obligate House conferees to adopt the Senate's language on the child tax credit legislation during conference committee negotiations. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
H.R. 2754. Fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Failed to Include Adequate Funding for Renewable Energy Programs. One of the few procedural prerogatives available to opponents of a piece of legislation in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee and is usually a deathblow to the bill. During debate on the energy and water appropriations bill-a measure to provide federal funding to the Energy Department and related agencies responsible for energy and water projects-Congressman Hoyer (D-MD) motioned to recommit the bill to committee. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit because, in their view, the bill provided inadequate funding for renewable energy sources. For years, Progressives have advocated for a more dedicated effort on the part of the federal government to develop renewable sources of energy such as solar power, biomass energy, and wind power. The funding which was contained in the appropriations bill, Progressives argued, focused too heavily on nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources and gave short shrift to renewable energy sources. While Progressives voted in favor of Hoyer's motion, Democrats were almost equally divided on the issue and, with opposition from an overwhelming majority of Republicans, the motion to recommit was rejected 99-310. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
H.R. 2754. Fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations/Vote to Provide Additional Funding for Renewable Energy Programs. The energy and water appropriations bill at issue here provided $27.1 billion in federal funding for the Energy Department, the Army Corp of Engineers, water projects, and a wide range of independent agencies which handle issues related to energy and water. In the view of Progressives, inadequate funding was included in the bill for renewable energy programs; too much funding, they argued, was directed toward nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. During debate on the appropriations measure, Congressman Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment which would have provided an additional $30 million for renewable energy programs. For years, Progressives have advocated for a more dedicated effort on the part of the federal government to develop renewable sources of energy such as solar power, biomass energy, and wind power. Although Progressives voted in favor of Udall's amendment, the measure was struck down on a 153-251 vote and the additional money for renewable energy programs was not provided. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
H.R. 2754. Fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations/Vote to Reduce Funding for an Environmentally-Damaging Dredging Project in Delaware. During committee negotiations on the 2004 energy and water appropriations bill, committee-members agreed to increase the level of funding in the bill for the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project from $300,000 to $8 million. Dredging the Delaware River, proponents argued, would provide shipping vessels with easier access to Delaware's ports. When the energy and water appropriations bill reached the House floor, Congressman Andrews (D-NJ) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the amount of funding for the Delaware dredging project to its original $300,000 level. Progressives opposed the Delaware dredging project and supported Andrew's amendment to cut funding for the project. In the view of Progressives, the removal of large amounts of silt through dredging would have caused serious harm to ecosystems in the Delaware river. Despite their support, the Andrews amendment was defeated on a 194-213 vote and the $8 million funding level for the Delaware River dredging project prevailed. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. Earlier in the congressional session, a $350 billion tax cut package was enacted which included a provision to increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1000 (the child tax credit is essentially a tax cut for families with children). The final version of the $350 billion tax cut, however, exempted low income families from the child tax credit increase which was contained in the bill. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue and pursued delaying tactics until Republican leaders agreed to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families. Republicans leaders eventually agreed to extend the child tax credit to low-income households, but only if additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals were included in any child tax credit legislation. Legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income families and provide additional tax breaks for military families and high-income earners passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the legislation. On this vote, Representative Michaud (D-ME) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Michaud's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (the final version of the legislation). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, extending the increase in the child tax credit to low-income families as quickly as possible was needed to provide assistance to some of the most impoverished members of society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Michaud's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was defeated on a party-line vote of 202-214, thereby failing to obligate House conferees to adopt the Senate's language on the child tax credit legislation during conference committee negotiations. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of an Interior Department Spending Bill Which Allowed Commercial Interests Such as Logging and Mining Greater Access to Federal Lands. The subject of this vote was final passage of a $19.6 billion appropriations bill to fund the Interior Department and related agencies in 2004. Progressives voted against the measure based on several objections they had with the bill. First, the amount of funding contained in the bill was less then the Interior Department's appropriation in 2003. Given the importance of the Interior Department in protecting and managing public lands, Progressives argued, the Interior appropriation should be augmented, not reduced, from the previous year's level. Second, Progressives voiced opposition to administration-supported language in the bill which would increase the access of recreational snowmobiles to national parks (see Roll Call Vote #385). Recreational snowmobiles, Progressives noted, have been a leading cause of environmental damage in national parks. Third, Progressives objected to provisions in the legislation which would grant commercial interests such as logging and mining companies greater access to federally-managed lands (see Roll Call Votes 386 and 388). In the view of Progressives, commercial activities threaten to corrupt the natural beauty of wilderness areas. Despite opposition from Progressives, the Interior appropriations bill was adopted on a 268-152 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Mining Industry ENVIRONMENT— Noise Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Mining Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Restrict the Federal Government's Ability to Regulate the Access of Private and Commercial Interests, Such as Logging and Mining Operations, to Public Lands. In a move intended to reduce the power of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-the federal agency responsible for protecting and preserving public lands for future generations-Representative Taylor (R-NC) proposed an amendment to the 2004 Interior appropriations bill to restrict the BLM's so-called "rights-of-way" powers. Rights-of-way powers allow the Bureau to regulate access to public lands and deny entrance to individuals or groups who may exploit the land for their own material gain (hunters, loggers, miners, etc.). Progressives viewed Taylor's amendment as an attempt to open federally-managed wilderness areas to logging, mining, and other commercial interests and voted against the amendment as a way to preserve the natural beauty of wilderness areas. The Taylor amendment was adopted on a 226-194 vote and the power of the Bureau of Land Management to regulate commercial access to public lands was summarily restricted. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Mining Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Mining Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Road Building, Logging, and Mining Operations in Alaska's Chugach and Tongass National Forests. Shortly before President Clinton left office, the departing president implemented a rule-the so-called Roadless Area Conservation Rule-to prevent road building, logging, and mining in 58.5 million undeveloped acres of national forests. The Bush Administration's support for "forest-thinning" projects in densely-wooded, fire-prone areas, however, placed them in opposition to the road building and logging ban (road building and logging are interrelated; without forest roads, extracted timber cannot be transported). On June 9, 2003, the administration announced that it would exempt Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests from the Clinton-era ban on road building, logging, and mining in those areas. During debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, Congressman Inslee (D-WA) proposed an amendment which would have prevented the administration from changing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in such a way as to allow road building, logging, and mining in federal forestland. Progressives voted in favor of Inslee's amendment as a way to preserve the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas and protect national forests from timber extraction and mining activities. The Inslee measure was defeated on a 185-234 vote which allowed the administration's proposed road building and logging activities in previously-protected forests to move forward. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Defeat an Administration-Backed Provision Designed to Reverse the Scheduled Phase-Out of Recreational Snowmobiles in National Parks. After ten years of study, the National Park Service issued an environmental impact statement in 2000 which recommended the phase-out of recreational snowmobilies in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The Park Service's report identified recreational snowmobiles as a major cause of environmental degradation in the National Parks. The Bush Administration, unhappy with the report's conclusions, required the Park Service to conduct a second study into the impact of recreational snowmobiles in the two National Parks. The second report by the Park Service reached the same conclusion; that snowmobiles had caused environmental damage in the two National Parks. In response, the administration and Republican lawmakers inserted a provision into the 2004 Interior appropriations bill which would ignore the reports by the National Park Service and allow snowmobiles continued access to the National Parks. During debate on the Interior appropriation bill, Representative Holt (D-NJ) introduced an amendment which would have deleted the administration's snowmobile provision and thereby maintained the scheduled phase-out of snowmobiles. Progressives endorsed Holt's proposal as a way to safeguard the National Parks from air pollution, noise pollution, and other environmentally-damaging consequences of snowmobile traffic on pristine federal lands. On a tie vote of 210-210, the Holt amendment was defeated and, despite recommendations by the National Park Service to the contrary, continued snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks was allowed (legislation which results in a tie vote is defeated). ENVIRONMENT— Noise Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Retain Regulations Which Require the Forest Service to Seek Public Input and Conduct Environmental and Scientific Reviews When Drafting Forest Management Plans. At the request of the Bush Administration, the 2004 Interior appropriations bill contained a provision which would ease regulations requiring the Forest Service to seek public input and conduct environmental and scientific reviews when drafting forest management plans. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment which would have blocked the implementation of any forest management plan that failed to incorporate public views or scientific and environmental studies in the final version of the plan. In the view of Progressives, any forest management plan should be subjected to environmental analysis and public scrutiny. The administration's proposal to prevent public and scientific review of forest management plans, Progressives argued, was motivated by a desire to ramp up logging activities without environmental scrutiny in federal forestland. Progressives voted in favor of Udall's amendment but the measure was struck down 198-222 and the administration-supported provision remained in the appropriations bill, allowing the logging to proceed. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Interior Department From Participating in the Slaughter of Bison. Yellowstone National Park is the last area in the U.S. which features free-roaming bison. Each year, however, an average of 250 Yellowstone Bison are slaughtered by the Interior Department when those animals cross an invisible line into the plains in search of food during the winter. In an effort to protect the Yellowstone bison, Congressman Rahall (D-WV) offered an amendment to the 2004 Interior appropriations bill which would have barred the Interior Department from killing bison (ironically, the mascot of the Interior Department's is a bison). Progressives argued that a major goal of the Interior department is the protection of species, not their destruction, and they voted in support of Rahall's amendment to prevent the further slaughter of bison. Despite support from Progressives, the Rahall amendment was defeated 199-220. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Hunters From Attracting Bears With Food. The subject of this vote was an amendment by Representative Gallegly (R-CA) which would have prevented the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from using funds to bait bears on federal lands. Bear-baiting is practiced by attracting bears with food; when the bear has found the meal, the hunter then shoots the bear. Progressives opposed bear-baiting on ethical grounds; in their view; bear-baiting unfairly advantages sportsmen over bears. Many Republicans, conversely, viewed Gallegly's amendment was an infringement on states' rights and opposed the measure for that reason. On a vote of 163-255, the Gallegly amendment was defeated. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Reduce the Federal Government's Role in Acquiring, Managing, and Conserving Wildlife Areas. One function of the Interior Department is to acquire uninhabited lands for purposes of conservation and/or recreation. Another purpose of the Department is to fight forest-fires. During consideration of the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, a spending measure which funds the Interior department and related agencies, Congressman Shadegg (R-AZ) proposed to transfer $19 million contained in the appropriations bill from land acquisition programs to fire prevention programs. Progressives voted against Shadegg's proposed transfer of funds because, in their view, the spending bill already contained plenty of money for fire prevention programs (over $100 million) while the appropriation failed to include what they characterized as sufficient funding for land acquisition programs ($29 million was included). Progressives favored additional funding for land acquisition programs as a way to help safeguard natural areas for future generations. Shadegg's amendment, Progressives pointed out, would have only diminished the funds available in 2004 for land acquisition projects. Democrats voted overwhelming against the Shadegg amendment and the measure was soundly rejected on a vote of 128-298. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Protect Fish and Wildlife in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Water-intensive alfalfa sprouts planted by California and Oregon farmers have caused water shortages and droughts in those states, especially in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges located in Northern California and Southern Oregon. During debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) offered an amendment which would have prevented alfalfa farmers from planting their crops in water-starved areas in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Progressives supported Blumenauer's amendment as a way to protect fish and wildlife in those refuges from water-hungry crops. In 2002, Progressives noted, 33,000 fish went belly-up in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges as a result of dried-up rivers and streams. The water from those streams, Progressives noted, had been absorbed by water-intensive alfalfa farming. Blumenauer's amendment to cut back on farming in and around the wildlife areas was defeated on a vote of 197-228. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Increase the Accessibility of Federal Lands and Recreational Areas to the Public. During debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, Representative DeFazio (D-OR) introduced an amendment which, he argued, would have increased individuals' accessibility to federal forestland and other recreational areas. Had DeFazio's amendment passed, the total acreage of federal lands subject to recreational fees-payments by visitors who enter certain lands which are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management-would have been reduced. Progressives voted in favor of DeFazio's amendment because, in their view, individuals should be encouraged, and not charged, to visit public lands and recreational areas. Forty-seven Democrats voted against DeFazio's amendment and the measure was defeated 184-241. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Increase Funding to the National Endowments of the Arts and Humanities. One of the Democratic amendments which was voted upon during debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill was a measure by Representative Slaughter (D-NY) to provide an additional $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and an additional $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Progressives, who support federal assistance to the arts and humanities, voted in favor of Slaughter's amendment. A vibrant arts community, Progressives argued, is a necessary component of a civilized society. A majority of Republicans voted against the amendment; in their view, federal funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities was a waste of taxpayer dollars. In fact, Republican lawmakers have made numerous attempts in recent years to eliminate all federal funding to the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Thirty-five Republicans joined a solid majority of Democrats in passing the Slaughter amendment on a 225-200 vote. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on an Interior Department Spending Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Underfunded Land and Wildlife Conservation Programs. Prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on the $19.6 billion Interior appropriations bill. The Interior spending bill provided funding in 2004 for the Department of the Interior and related federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Progressives voted against the rule because it would prevent a House floor vote on an amendment-which was drafted by Congressman Obey (D-WI) and supported by Progressives-to add $569 million to the Interior appropriations bill for land and wildlife conservation programs. The rule governing debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill was adopted on a vote of 232-189 so Obey's amendment was killed without being voted upon. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of an Interior Department Spending Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Underfunded Land and Wildlife Conservation Programs. On this procedural vote, Representative Hastings (R-WA) motioned to allow consideration of the rule governing debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill (prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate). The $19.6 billion spending bill provided funding in 2004 for the Department of the Interior and related federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Progressives voted no on the motion to proceed to a vote on the rule because the rule would have prevented a vote on an amendment drafted by Congressman Obey (D-WI) which Progressives supported. Obey's amendment would have added $569 million to the Interior appropriations bill for land and wildlife conservation programs. On a straight party-line vote of 219-199, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote on the rule was allowed. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate. The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congresswoman DeLauro (D-CT) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, DeLauro's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (the final version of the legislation). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored DeLauro's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 206-220. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Increase the Difficulty for Immigrants Seeking Employment in the United States. For over 130 years, the Mexican Embassy located in Washington, D.C. has been issuing consular identification cards to its foreign nationals who are employed in the United States. The consular cards are meant to identify those individuals who have been approved by the Mexican government to represent Mexican commercial interests in the United States. During debate on the State Department authorization bill, Representative Hostettler (R-IN) offered an amendment which would have established new regulations governing the issuance of consular identification cards by Mexico (and other foreign missions) in the United States. Hostettler argued that his amendment was necessary to insure that accurate records on foreign nationals in the U.S. were maintained. Progressives opposed the Hostettler amendment and argued that the new regulations included in the proposal would have made it nearly impossible for immigrants, including Mexicans, to qualify for employment in the United States. In the view of Progressives, Hostettler's amendment was a thinly-veiled attempt to both discourage Mexicans from seeking employment in the United States and deny them status as foreign nationals. Despite opposition from Progressives, the Hostettler amendment was adopted on a vote of 226-198. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Improve the Economic Vitality of the U.S. Communications Satellite Industry. U.S. trade laws require communication satellite (COMSAT) producers to obtain a license from the State Department before they are able to negotiate with a prospective satellite buyer. As a result of the often-lengthy licensing process, U.S. COMSAT producers often must wait weeks before formal negotiations with a prospective buyer are allowed to proceed. Similar bureaucratic hurdles and delays no not exist in other countries and, with the U.S. COMSAT market in economic decline, Representative Tauscher (D-CA) offered an amendment to the State Department authorization bill which would have expedited the licensing process for buyers in NATO (allied) countries and thereby allowed U.S. COMSAT producers to sell their products in a more timely manner. Progressives voted in favor of Tauscher's amendment as a way to level the playing field between the U.S. satellite industry and its foreign competitors and thereby insure the industry's future success. Fostering a vibrant domestic COMSAT industry, Progressives argued, was necessary to insure continued U.S.-dominance in defense-related technologies. Opponents, however, worried that a looser licensing process would allow U.S.-made COMSATs to fall into enemy hands. On a vote of 207-219, the Tauscher amendment was defeated and the licensing process remained unchanged. WAR & PEACE— Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Reduce U.S. Contributions to the United Nations. During debate on the State Department authorization bill, Congressman King (R-IA) proposed an amendment which would have imposed a cap on U.S. assistance to the United Nations. The purpose of his amendment, King argued, was to insure that the U.S. did not pay any more money to the United Nations than did other countries. In 2003, contributions made by the United States to the United Nations comprised twenty-two percent of the U.N.'s budget; had King's amendment passed, the proportion of U.S. funding for the U.N. would have fallen to six percent. In the view of Progressives, King's amendment to cut U.S. assistance to the U.N. would have undermined the standing of the United States in the international community. Progressives argued that the United States-the world's most wealthy country (at least in terms of Gross Domestic Product)-had an important financial obligation to insure adequate funding for the United Nations, an organization which conducts and coordinates an extensive array of humanitarian aid missions. Progressives also viewed King's amendment as an unwarranted unilateral action by the U.S.; any funding inequalities perceived by King and others, they argued, should be addressed within the United Nations. Progressives voted against King's amendment and, with the support of fifty Republicans, the measure was rejected 187-237. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Famine Relief AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Deny U.S. Aid to an International Family Planning and Health Organization. During International Relations Committee deliberations on the State Department authorization bill, Representative Crowley (D-NY) successfully added a provision to the bill to authorize $50 million per year for the U.N. Population Fund (also known as UNFPA). UNFPA, an international family planning and health services organization, operates in over 150 countries. When the State Department authorization bill reached the House floor, Representative Smith (R-NJ) protested that UNFPA had played an active role in financing coerced abortions in China (which maintains a "one-child" policy) and offered an amendment to strip Crowley's provision from the bill. Progressives contested Smith's claim that the UNFPA played an active role in financing abortions in China and pointed to the so-called Hyde amendment-enacted in 1984 and named after its sponsor Henry Hyde (R-IL)-which forbids U.S. funding to any group which provides support, financial or otherwise, for conducting abortions overseas. Progressives also argued that the funding cut contained in the Smith amendment would restrict UNFPA's ability to provide health care in impoverished countries; a goal which Progressives supported. Progressives voted against the Smith amendment but, on a narrow 216-211 vote, the Smith amendment passed and the Crowley language was dropped from the State Department authorization bill. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote on Rules of Debate Which Prevented House Consideration of Twenty Amendments Supported By Democrats. Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a bill to authorize about $40 billion through 2008 for the State Department and foreign aid programs. Progressives voted against the rule because it disallowed debate and votes on twenty amendments which Progressives supported. If passed, those amendments would have increased foreign aid to Afghan women, required environmental impact assessments of U.S.-supported projects overseas, urged the Bush Administration to participate in negotiations on climate change to reduce greenhouse gases, and provided funding for the removal of land mines and agricultural redevelopment of former mine fields. Democrats voted unanimously against the rule but it was adopted on a party-line vote of 222-201. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Poor People in Developing Countries ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. On this vote, Representative Davis (D-TN) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the fallback option included in the Senate bill during conference committee negotiations. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. On a nearly party line vote of 191-221, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were therefore not compelled to adopt the Senate language regarding a prescription drug fallback option. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Prevents the Agriculture Department From Issuing Country-of-Origin Labels for Meat Products and Cuts Funding for Environmental Protection Activities. The subject of this vote was final passage of the 2004 agriculture appropriations bill which provided $77.5 billion in 2004 for crop subsidies, rural development, and nutrition programs. Progressives voted against final passage for several reasons. First, in their view, the bill did not contain enough funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a program which aims to improve water quality in agricultural areas. Second, the bill failed to include any money for the Wetlands Reserve Program, a program which seeks to protect wetland areas. Third, the bill prevented the Agriculture Department from issuing country-of-origin labels on meat products (see Roll Call Vote #354). Despite opposition from Progressives, the agriculture appropriations bill passed 347-64. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Human Consumption of Meat From Animals That Are Unable to Stand or Walk. During debate on the 2004 agricultural appropriations bill, Representative Ackerman (D-NY) introduced an amendment which would have prevented the Department of Agriculture from approving for human consumption meat that came from "downed animals," animals that cannot stand or walk. Progressives endorsed Ackerman's amendment as a way to protect consumers against meat products that come from sickly animals. Meat products from downed animals, Progressives argued, are likely to contain pathogens which could sicken consumers. The national school lunch program and fast-food chains, Progressives argued, do not accept meat from downed animals for that very reason. Other meat distributors, however, do purchase beef from downed animals. On a close vote of 199-202, the Ackerman amendment was defeated and meat from downed animals remained legal for human consumption. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote to Crack Down on Illegal Animal Fighting. Despite the enactment of federal laws that prohibit the activity, authorities in numerous states continue to find evidence of dog-fighting and cock-fighting. During debate on the 2004 agriculture appropriations bill, Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) offered an amendment which would have dedicated $800,000 to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the purpose of enforcing laws that prohibit animal fighting. In the view of Progressives, animal-fighting is a barbaric activity and they voted in favor of Blumenauer's amendment to crack down on the illegal enterprise. Before fights, Progressives noted, owners give drugs to their animals to make them hyper-aggressive and make their blood clot more quickly so that the animal can continue fighting after being injured. Moreover, animals are often abandoned after the fight and left to roam wild. Allowing those drugged up animals free, Progressives argued, poses a risk to public safety should they attack a person. A solid majority of Democrats voted with sixty-five Republicans and the Bluenauer's amendment was adopted 222-179. ENVIRONMENT— Humane Treatment of Animals |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote to Allow the Agriculture Department to Institute a Country-of-Origin Labeling System for Meat Products. The most recent reauthorization of the so-called "Freedom to Farm Act" in 2002, which authorized funding for a wide range of agricultural programs, included a provision to allow the Department of Agriculture to implement a country-of-origin labeling system for meat products. The 2004 agricultural appropriations bill, however, contains language supported by the Bush Administration which would prevent the labeling of meat by country-of-origin. During consideration of the appropriations bill, Representative Rehberg (R-MT) proposed an amendment which would have restored the Agriculture Department's ability to label where meat was produced. Progressives supported Rehberg's amendment as a way to help U.S. ranchers compete against Canadian beef producers. Additionally, Progressives argued, country-of-origin meat labels would better inform U.S. consumers about the quality of the meat they are purchasing. With country-of-origin labeling, Progressives pointed out, consumers would know when to steer clear of meat that was produced in a country which experienced a recent outbreak of mad-cow disease, E Coli, or any other pathogen. Forty-seven Republicans (many of them from meat-producing states) joined Progressives in supporting the Rehberg amendment but the measure was defeated on a 193-208 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Public Education and Weakens Labor Protections. The subject of this vote was final passage of the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill which provided federal funding for a wide range of labor protections, health and human services, and education initiatives. Progressives voted against the measure for two main reasons. First, the spending bill failed to fully-fund public schools at the level previously authorized by Congress. In fact, Progressives noted, the bill fails to provide the level of funding set forth in President Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Second, the bill contains two provisions which, in their view, would seriously weaken labor and health protections for workers. One of those provisions would prevent certain workers from receiving overtime pay even if they worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. The other provision would weaken health protections for miners by imposing a fourfold increase in the maximum allowable level of carcinogenic coal dust in mine shafts. During a previous debate on the maximum allowable level of coal dust in mine shafts (see Roll Call Vote #349), Congressman Rahall presented data which showed that 55,000 miners had perished from black lung disease between 1969 and 1990 and that the disease has claimed an average of 1,400 lives each year from 1990 to 2003. Relaxing regulations on the maximum allowable amount of coal dust in mine shafts, Progressives argued, would cause even more deaths by black lung disease. Despite unanimous opposition from Democrats, the appropriations bill was enacted on a vote of 215-208. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Cut Funding For Several Health Grants Provided By the National Institutes of Health. During debate on the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, Congressman Toomey (R-PA) proposed an amendment which would have cut funding for four grants provided by National Institutes of Health. Those four grants all explored areas involving sex. Progressives opposed Toomey's amendment to cut funding for those grants because, while they might at first glance appear to be superfluous areas of health research, Progressives argued that politicizing scientific research will prevent important scientific breakthroughs from occurring in a wide range of potentially politically-charged areas of experimentation. Progressives pointed out that a study on Polish pigs conducted several decades ago-which drew criticism from lawmakers who though the grant was a waste of money-in fact led to the development of a new blood pressure medicine which millions of people depend on today. In the view of Progressives, scientists, and not Congressmen, should be the ones who decide which research proposals are worthy of further exploration. With the help of Progressives, the Toomey amendment was defeated on a close vote of 210-212. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Freedom of Scientific Inquiry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Strike a Provision in the Bill Which Would Deny Overtime Pay to White Collar Workers. One of the most controversial provisions in the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill was an administration-sponsored effort to exempt certain classes of workers from overtime pay. Specifically, the administration-backed provision would exempt white-collar workers, such as executive assistants, administrators, and professionals, from overtime pay even if those employees worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have blocked the implementation of the overtime rules changes. Progressives viewed the administration's rules changes on overtime pay as an affront to both workers' rights and fair labor practices and they therefore voted in favor of Obey's proposal. Progressives also pointed out that many workers depend on overtime pay to provide for their families and that denying overtime pay would cause them financial hardship. Although Democrats voted almost unanimously in favor of Obey's measure, the amendment was narrowly defeated on a vote of 210-213. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Sanctions Against Under-Performing Schools If Those Schools Did Not Receive Full-Funding As Outlined by President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. President Bush's 2001 education initiative dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act combined a variety of authorizations to increase education funding with stricter standards to assess school performances. To date, however, Congress has failed to fully-fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Consequently, schools have not been provided the level of funding promised by the president to improve students' education. Despite these funding shortfalls, provisions in the Act still allowed the administration to sanction (cut funding to) public schools that failed to meet the performance standards set forth in the Act. During consideration of the bill, Congressman Allen (D-ME) offered an amendment which would have prevented the administration from sanctioning any schools that have not been provided the level of funding that was authorized in the president's 2001 Act. In the view of Progressives, imposing penalties on schools that are denied funding to improve their teaching was unfair and they voted in favor of Allen's amendment for that reason. On a nearly party-line vote, Allen's proposal was rejected by a 199-223 margin. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Protect the Health of Miners By Eliminating a Provision in Bill Which Would Allow Greater Concentrations of Cancerous Coal Dust in Mine Shafts. In 1969, Congress passed important legislation to combat black lung disease acquired by coal miners by imposing tougher regulations on the amount of toxic coal dust that was allowed in the mine shafts. The 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, however, included a provision sponsored by the Bush Administration to mandate a fourfold increase in the amount of allowable dust in coal mines. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Rahall (D-WV) proposed an amendment which would have prevented implementation of the administration's weaker coal dust standard. Progressives voted in favor of Rahall's amendment as a way to protect coal miners from black lung disease and other health risks borne from coal dust inhalation. During House debate on his amendment, Congressman Rahall presented data which showed that 55,000 miners had perished from black lung disease between 1969 and 1990 and that the disease has claimed an average of 1,400 lives each year from 1990 to 2003. Weakening the coal dust standard, Progressives argued, would cause even more black lung deaths in the future. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Rahall's amendment but the measure was narrowly rejected on a 210-212 vote and the weaker coal dust standard remained intact. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Occupational Safety and Health |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Protest Vote Against Spending Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Education and Other Domestic Programs. As initially drafted, the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill-which provides federal funding for a wide range of domestic purposes including labor protections, health and human services, and education-failed to fully-fund education as set forth in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. In an effort to restore funding to education and other domestic priorities, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the amount provided in the Bush Administration's recently-enacted tax cuts to individuals earning in excess of $1 million in order to add funding for education and other programs in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. Under House budget rules, however, amendments to appropriations bills must be considered directly relevant to the legislation. During floor debate in the House chamber, Congressman Regula (R-OH) raised a point of order against the Obey amendment on the grounds that it was not relevant to the underlying spending bill. The objection was sustained and Obey's amendment was defeated. The subject of this new vote was a second attempt by Obey to strike the enacting clause in the appropriations bill which, if passed, would have effectively killed the appropriations bill. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to strike based on their objections to the funding shortfalls in the underlying bill. In the view of Progressives, Republican budget priorities placed the needs of wealthy individuals above those of children, workers, and the infirm. Evidence of their claim, Progressives argued, was President Bush's three rounds of tax cuts which they said had starved the government of the revenue needed for elementary and secondary education, health services for the infirm, and other purposes. Obey's second attempt to strike the enacting clause in the appropriations bill was rejected by a 197-224 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Protest Vote Against Spending Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Education and Other Domestic Programs. As originally proposed, the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill-which provides federal funding for a wide range of domestic purposes including labor protections, health and human services, and education-failed to fully-fund education as set forth in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. To alleviate funding shortfalls in education and other domestic priorities, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the size of the Bush Administration's recently-enacted tax cuts-only as they applied to individuals earning in excess of $1 million-in order to increase funding for education and other programs in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. Under House budget rules, however, amendments to appropriations bills must be considered directly relevant to the legislation. During floor debate in the House chamber, Congressman Regula (R-OH) raised a point of order against the Obey amendment on the grounds that it was not germane (relevant) to the underlying spending bill. The objection was sustained and Obey's amendment was struck down. In response, Obey motioned to strike the enacting clause in the appropriations bill which, if passed, would have effectively killed the measure. The subject of this vote was Obey's motion to strike the enacting clause and kill the appropriations bill. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to strike based on their objections to the funding shortfalls in the underlying bill and their opposition to Republican budget priorities which, in the view of Progressives, placed the needs of wealthy individuals above those of children, workers, and the infirm. Evidence of their claim, Progressives argued, was President Bush's three rounds of tax cuts which had starved the government of revenue needed for elementary and secondary education, health services for the infirm, and other purposes. Despite support from Progressives, Obey's motion to strike the enacting clause of the appropriations bill was defeated 199-222. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Chronically Ill AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Education in 2004. One of the largest spending bills considered by Congress each year is the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. That bill provides funding for a wide range of government initiatives involving labor protections, health and human services, and elementary and secondary education. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to allow consideration of the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, the spending bill failed to provide enough funding for education and a wide range of other government programs and services. Progressives pointed out that the appropriations bill under consideration did not even provide the level of education funding requested by President Bush in his No Child Left Behind Act. The reason for the lack of funding, Progressives argued, was what they characterized as the administration's reckless pursuit of tax cuts which has starved the federal government of funds for education and other important domestic priorities. Despite opposition from Progressives, the procedural vote to allow consideration of the bill was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 223-200. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
H.R. 2211. Teacher Training/Protest Vote Against Republican Tactics of Failing to Provide the Level of Education Funding Authorized by Congress. The goal behind this legislation was to improve the quality of public school instruction by instituting a stricter standard for measuring the effectiveness of college and university teacher training programs. While members from both parties supported the goal of the legislation, Progressives voted against the rule governing debate on the bill based on their objections to the Bush Administration's failure to fully-fund education programs authorized by Congress. President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, Progressives pointed out, received $8 billion less than the amount that Congress had authorized for education funding in the previous two congressional sessions. In the view of Progressives, the Republican strategy of authorizing large sums of money for education but failing to appropriate that money was an underhanded attempt to deceive the American public. The rule governing debate on the underlying teacher training measure, the subject of this vote, was adopted 252-170 and the measure passed overwhelmingly later in the day on a 404-17 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
H.R. 438. Student Loan Forgiveness for Teachers/Protest Vote Against Republican Tactics of Failing to Provide the Level of Education Funding Authorized by Congress. In an effort to attract quality teachers to high schools in poor neighborhoods, legislation was proposed which would help pay the student loans of college-educated high school teachers if those teachers worked in underfunded schools. While both Republicans and Democrats supported the goal of the bill, Progressives supported a higher level of funding than was authorized in the legislation. Progressives also voted against the rule governing debate on the bill, the subject of this vote, to display their dissatisfaction with past Republican tactics of authorizing large sums of money for education but failing to deliver that money in the form of an appropriation. President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, Progressives pointed out, continues to be underfunded by over $8 billion. In the view of Progressives, this strategy of failing to deliver the education funding authorized by Congress was an underhanded attempt to deceive the American public. Despite the show of force from Progressives, Republicans were able to pass the rule on a vote of 230-192 and the legislation was adopted later in the day by an overwhelming 417-7 margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Provide Seniors With Drug Coverage Through the Private Sector Rather Than Through the Medicare Program. The subject of this vote was final passage of a Republican-drafted prescription drug bill which would provide seniors drug coverage either through private insurance plans, if they remained in the Medicare program, or through new private health networks (which function much like preferred provider organizations, or PPO's) if seniors switched out of Medicare. Monthly premiums would be $35 and the annual deductible would be $250 for those who remained in Medicare. Drug expenditures above $2000 and below $4900, however, would not be covered; seniors would have to pay those costs out of their own pocket. Progressives opposed the Republican drug bill because, in their view, drug coverage should be provided through Medicare and not contracted out to private companies for three main reasons. First, Medicare could provide drug coverage to seniors more cheaply than could private plans because the enormous purchasing power of Medicare would allow the government to negotiate cheaper drug prices with drug-makers. Second, unlike the Republicans' proposal, the Democrats' Medicare prescription drug plan does not contain any gaps in drug coverage. Third, Progressives worried that the underlying bill would spawn future efforts by conservatives to privatize health care and destroy the Medicare program. By the thinnest possible margin, the drug bill was adopted on a 216-215 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Seniors With Drug Coverage Through the Private Sector Rather Than Through the Medicare Program. The Republican-drafted prescription drug bill under consideration would give seniors drug coverage either through private insurance plans, if they remained in the Medicare program, or through new private health networks (which function much like preferred provider organizations, or PPO's) if seniors switched out of Medicare. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, drug coverage should be provided directly though Medicare and not contracted out to the private sector. One of the few procedural tools available to opponents of a piece of legislation is the motion to recommit the bill to committee to make specified changes. During debate on the Republican drug bill, Representative Thompson (D-CA) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to provide drug coverage directly through Medicare instead of though private companies. Progressives supported the motion to recommit based on their objections to the underlying legislation. As is usually the case, the motion to recommit was defeated; the vote was 208-223. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill Which Would Provide Prescription Drug Coverage Though the Medicare Program (Rather Than the Private Sector) and Would Not Contain Any Gaps In Drug Coverage. Many senior citizens-and especially those living on fixed incomes-are unable to afford the rising costs of prescription drugs. While both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to solve the problem, the two parties have very different ideas about how best to achieve a positive outcome for America's seniors. Democrats, including Progressives, for instance, favor adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare health insurance program. Republicans, conversely, support proposals which provide prescription drug coverage to seniors through private insurance companies. During debate on Republican-drafted prescription drug legislation, Congressman Rangel (D-NY) proposed a substitute bill on behalf of the Democrats which would have established a prescription drug benefit through Medicare with a $25 monthly premium and a $100 yearly deductible. The Democratic plan would have covered eighty percent of all drug costs up to $2000 and all costs in excess of $2000. Moreover, the Democratic proposal would not contain any gaps in drug coverage (the Republican drug bill, conversely, provides no coverage for drug expenditures above $2000 and below $4900). Progressives supported the Democratic bill because it provided more generous coverage to seniors, did not rely on private companies to provide drug coverage (the Republican bill offers drug coverage solely through the private sector), and did not contain any gaps in drug coverage. Progressives supported the Democrats' public sector approach because, in their view, the Republicans' private-sector approach to drug coverage would weaken the Medicare program and subject the health care and drug coverage of seniors to the whims of the free market. Republicans voted unanimously against the Democratic drug bill and, with the help of twenty-nine Democrats, the proposal was defeated 175-255. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
H.R. 2596. Medical Savings Accounts/Vote to Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable By Creating Tax Incentives to Encourage Individuals to Save in Anticipation of Future Health Care Needs. This bill would create new tax incentives for individuals to invest in medical savings accounts. Republicans argue that creating medical savings accounts and encouraging investment in those accounts will help individuals afford the rising costs of prescription drugs. In the view of Progressives, medical savings accounts would do little to help seniors afford prescription drugs and they voted against the measure for that reason. Progressives argued that a more effective approach to insure that seniors can afford the drugs they need is to add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Doing so, they pointed out, would tap the vast purchasing power of Medicare to negotiate the cheapest possible drug prices from drug-makers. The Medicare program could then pass the savings on to patients. Despite opposition from Progressives, the medical savings account bill passed by a 237-191 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
H.R. 2559. Fiscal 2004 Military Construction Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Consideration of an Amendment to the Military Construction Spending Bill Which Would Provide Funding to Build and/or Renovate the Living and Work Spaces of Military Families. The subject of this vote was a motion to order the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a spending bill to fund military construction efforts in 2004. The military construction spending bill provides funding for a wide range of projects, such as constructing or renovating living spaces for military families and building new military bases. Progressives voted against the motion to end debate because they wanted a vote on an amendment proposed by Congressman Obey (D-WI); if passed, the motion to order the previous question would have prevented consideration of the Obey amendment. The Obey amendment would have increased spending in the bill by ten percent to fund the construction and/or renovation of homes and workplaces of servicemen and their families. The costs of Obey's amendment would have been paid for by reducing the amount provided in the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts-which disproportionately benefit the nation's wealthiest individuals-by an equivalent amount. Democrats voted unanimously against the motion to end debate and the possibility of amendment on the military construction bill but the motion passed 220-200 which prevented House floor consideration of the Obey amendment. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich WAR & PEACE— Well-Being of America's Military Personnel |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
H. Res. 297. Wednesday Suspensions/Vote to Change House Procedures to Allow House Leaders Greater Ease in Scheduling Legislation Without the Possibility of Debate or Amendment. The suspensions calendar in the House is usually reserved for non-controversial pieces of legislation. When the Speaker of the House calls up a measure under suspension of the rules, debate is shut off, no amendments to the measure are allowed, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass the legislation. In the past, pieces of legislation could be activated from the suspensions calendar only on Mondays and Tuesdays. The subject of this vote was an effort to allow legislation to be considered under suspension of the rules on Wednesdays (in addition to Mondays and Tuesdays) for the remainder of the 108th Congress. Progressives opposed the move because, by definition, debate and amendments are not allowed on legislation considered under suspension on the rules. In their view, debate on important issues has been given short shrift in recent years and extending the suspensions procedure would only exacerbate the lack of public deliberation. Additionally, Progressives were concerned that the Republican leadership would abuse the suspensions procedure by using it for a wide variety of important legislative items that, in the past, would have been subjected to careful public scrutiny and dialogue. On a nearly party-line vote of 226-203, the proposal to extend the suspensions procedure to Wednesdays was adopted. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
H.R. 1, H.R. 2596. Prescription Drug Benefit and Medical Savings Accounts/Vote on Rules of Debate on Two Bills: One Would Create a Voluntary, Privately-Run Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare Beneficiaries and the Other Would Create Medical Savings Accounts. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on two bills (prior to floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted). The first bill (H.R. 1) would create a voluntary program in Medicare to provide drug coverage through private companies. The second bill (H.R. 2596) would create tax-exempt medical savings accounts to help seniors cover health care expenses. Progressives voted against the rule based on their objections to the two bills. In their view, the prescription drug bill relied too heavily on private insurance companies to provide affordable drug coverage. Progressives also objected to the medical savings account bill because, in their view, market-based or privately-managed health care proposals would weaken the Medicare program and subject the health care and drug coverage of seniors to the whims of the free market. In the view of Progressives, strengthening the Medicare program-and not adopting market-based proposals-is the most effective way to insure that all seniors, including the poor and those from rural areas, are provided the proper amount of care. On a nearly party-line vote of 221-203, the rule governing debate on the two bills was adopted. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
H.R. 1, H.R. 2596. Prescription Drug Benefit and Medical Savings Accounts/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Bills: One Would Create a Voluntary, Privately-Run Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare Beneficiaries and the Other Would Create Medical Savings Accounts. In each of the last five years, Congress has attempted to pass legislation to help senior citizens afford the rising costs of prescription drugs. The subject of this vote was a motion to allow consideration of two bills: H.R. 1 would provide seniors with voluntary drug coverage through private insurance plans if they remained in the Medicare program; and H.R. 2596 would create tax-exempt medical savings accounts to help seniors cover health care expenses. Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to the two bills. The prescription drug bill, they argued, was too heavily reliant upon private insurance companies to provide drug coverage. Progressives also contended that the medical savings account bill would not solve the problem of rising health care costs. In the view of Progressives, strengthening the Medicare program-and not adopting market-based proposals-is the most effective way to insure that all seniors, including the poor and those from rural areas, are provided the proper amount of care. On a nearly party-line vote of 226-203, the motion to proceed to the two bills was adopted. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
H.R. 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote to Investigate Whether the Bush Administration Failed to Provide Intelligence to U.N. Weapons Inspectors on the Whereabouts of Weapons of Mass Destruction In Order to Justify Military Action Against Iraq. In the months leading up to the Iraqi war, President Bush repeatedly pledged to work with U.N. weapons inspectors by sharing U.S. intelligence regarding the location of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The President even cited military intelligence that he said proved the existence of Iraq's weapons program in his State of the Union Address. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been unearthed in Iraq. Consequently, serious allegations have arisen that the U.S. knew the location of weapons but did not inform the U.N. inspectors or, worse, that the Bush Administration knew it had faulty intelligence all along. During debate on a bill to authorize funding for the CIA and other intelligence agencies, Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) introduced an amendment which would have sanctioned a study into how much intelligence was shared between the Pentagon and U.N. inspectors in the months leading up to war. Progressives supported Lee's amendment as a way to determine if in fact the administration cooperated with U.N. weapons inspectors as President Bush had promised, or whether intelligence was withheld or falsified in order to augment the administration's case for war. Sixteen Democrats voted with the Republicans and the Lee amendment was defeated 185-239. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
H.R. 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote to Investigate Whether the Bush Administration Disclosed Erroneous Information to the Public to Justify War Against Iraq. One of the administration's main justifications for war with Iraq was the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in that country. In his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation, President Bush cited military intelligence that Iraq had an extensive chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. The intelligence included in the State of the Union address even identified specific locations in Iraq where stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons were stored. After months of searching for those weapons, however, U.S. inspectors have been unable to uncover any WMD in Iraq. In response, Representative Kucinich (D-OH) and others accused the administration of misleading the public about the dangers of Iraq's weapons program to the U.S. in order to justify war against Iraq. In Kucinich's words, "the CIA disseminated unreliable, raw, untrue information about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States." In an effort investigate the administration's intelligence-gathering activities prior to the Iraqi war, Congressman Kucinich offered an amendment to a bill to authorize funding for the CIA and other intelligence agencies which would have audited all telephone and electronic communications between the CIA and the office of Vice President Cheney on the subject of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to determine what evidence there was for the invasion. Progressives supported Kucinich's plan because, in their view, the public has a right to know if the administration disclosed intelligence which had previously been discredited by the U.S. intelligence establishment. Solid majorities from both parties voted against the Kucinich proposal and the measure was rejected 76-347. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
H.R. 2555. Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Protect Airline Passengers by Requiring a Thorough Inspection of All Aviation Cargo. One of the many duties of the Department of Homeland Security is to insure the safety of airline passengers. During House consideration of a $30.4 billion spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security, Congressman Markey (D-MA) introduced an amendment designed to prevent the implementation of any aviation cargo security plan which allows unscreened or uninspected cargo on passenger planes. Progressives voted in favor of Markey's amendment as a way to protect the flying public from the transport of potentially dangerous luggage. Opponents of the Markey amendment argued that requirements to screen every piece of luggage would be too costly to implement. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Markey's proposal and, with help from a substantial number of Republicans, the amendment was adopted on a 278-146 vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
H.R. 2555. Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Expedite Commuter Traffic at the U.S.-Mexico Border. The subject of this vote was an amendment by Representative Filner (D-CA) to the 2004 Homeland Security Department (DHS) spending bill. Had it passed, Filner's amendment would have transferred $5 million in DHS administrative funding into a program run by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that allows low-risk commuters to use dedicated commuter lanes when crossing the U.S.-Mexico border (low risk commuters are defined as those drivers who have filed an application proving their residence, job location, and commuter status). Progressives supported Filner's amendment as a way to expedite commuter traffic at the border and allow border officials to dedicate greater attention toward inspecting vehicles driven by non-commuters. Progressives also pointed out that the number of applications for the low-risk commuter tags-which are displayed on the exterior of a car in plain view of customs officials-far exceeded the capacity of the Bureau of Customs to process those claims. The money included in the Filner amendment, they argued, would have helped process those applications more expeditiously. Despite support from Progressives, the Filner proposal was defeated by a 149-274 vote margin. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
H.R. 2555. Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment Designed to Increase Homeland Security Protections at the Nation's Seaports, Airports, and Borders. During debate on a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have added an additional $1 billion to the $30.4 billion package, including money to secure the nation's seaports, borders, and airports. Had Obey's amendment passed, the spending increase would have been offset by reducing the amount in tax breaks for individuals earning in excess of $1 million. Those tax breaks were contained in the $350 billion tax cut package that was enacted earlier in the congressional session. Progressives voted in favor of Obey's amendment because, in their view, protecting vulnerable areas of the nation's infrastructure against acts of terrorism is more important than providing tax relief to wealthy individuals. The Obey amendment, however, was not voted upon; Congressman Rogers (R-KY) raised a point of order against the Obey amendment on the grounds that the amendment constituted new legislation (House budget rules forbid additional legislative items to be added to an appropriations bill). The subject of this vote was a motion to sustain the objection to the Obey amendment which, if passed, would sink the Obey measure. Progressives voted against the Rogers objection based on their support for Obey's proposal. On a nearly party-line vote of 222-200, the objection was upheld and the Obey amendment was defeated. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
H.R. 2555, H. Res. 293, Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Department of Homeland Security Spending Bill. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of a rule specifying how debate would unfold on a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-and must be adopted prior to floor consideration of a measure. Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying spending bill. In the view of Progressives, the homeland security appropriations bill failed to dedicate enough money to protect vulnerable areas of the nation's infrastructure such as seaports and public transit systems. Republicans had the votes to overcome opposition and the rule was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 220-197. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
H.R. 2555, H. Res. 293, Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Department of Homeland Security Spending Bill. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to allow consideration of a rule governing debate on a $30.4 billion spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to House consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Progressives voted against the motion based on their objections to the underlying spending bill. In their view, the appropriations bill did not contain enough funding for a wide range of homeland security needs, especially protections in potentially vulnerable areas such as the nation's seaports and public transit systems. As the majority party, however, Republicans had the votes and the motion to proceed was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 221-196. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Passage of a Bill Which Would Exempt Small Businesses from State Laws
Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans. The subject of this vote was final passage of GOP-drafted legislation that would enable small businesses to consolidate their resources before purchasing so-called "association" health insurance plans for their employees. While Progressives support the goal of allowing small businesses to combine their resources in purchasing health insurance plans, they opposed the GOP-drafted bill because language in that bill would exempt association plans from state laws. Progressives noted that many state laws are designed to protect individuals against illness by requiring that health plans cover specific diseases such as breast cancer, autism, and mental illness. Progressives argued that exempting association plans from state laws would enable employers to provide health plans to their employees which contain gaping holes in coverage for diseases and other health problems. Progressives were also concerned that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive plans that do not provide workers with the same level of protection against health problems as did their previous health insurance policy. Progressives voted in opposition to the legislation but the measure was adopted on a 262-162 vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Would Exempt Small
Businesses from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans. One of the few procedural prerogatives available to opponents of legislation is the motion to recommit. If successful, a motion to recommit sends the measure back to committee and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to amend the bill. During debate on a GOP-drafted bill which would allow small businesses to combine their resources to purchase so-called "association" health plans for their employees, Congresswoman McCarthy (D-NY) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to add a provision which would prohibit employers from switching to association health care plans that do not provide their employees with the same level of coverage against breast cancer as did their previous health plan. While Progressives support the idea of allowing small businesses to combine their resources before purchasing health insurance plans, they opposed the GOP-drafted legislation because provisions in that bill would exempt association health plans from state law. In the view of Progressives, state laws that mandate coverage for diseases such as breast cancer provide a necessary guarantee that patients receive health care plans that provide adequate protections against health problems that may arise. Progressives argued that exempting association health plans from state law would enable employers to provide health care plans to their employees which contain gaping holes in coverage. Additionally, Progressives worried that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive health plans that do not provide workers with the same level of coverage as did their previous health insurance policy. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit based on their opposition to the GOP-drafted bill but the motion was rejected on a 192-230 vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill Which Would Provide Employees of
Small Businesses with Similar Health Protections as Those Offered in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, a
Comprehensive Health Plan for Federal Workers. During House debate on a GOP-drafted bill which would allow small businesses to pool their resources and purchase socalled "association" health plans for their employees, Congressman Kind (D-WI) proposed a substitute bill on behalf of the Democratic party which would have allowed employers with fewer than 100 employees to participate in a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan. That small employer plan would be tailored after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan; a comprehensive health care plan for federal employees that provides coverage for a wide range of health problems. The proposed small employer plan would have required employers to pay at least fifty-percent of their employees' premium costs and mandated that coverage be available to all employees who have worked at the company for over three months. Progressives supported the Democratic bill because, in their view, that bill provided employees with better health coverage and offered stronger safeguards against cost-cutting employers than the GOP-drafted measure. Moreover, Progressives were concerned that providing association plans with exemptions from state law would provide employers with financial incentives to switch from more comprehensive health plans that cover a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive plans that provide workers with weaker health care coverage. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to the Democratic bill and the measure was defeated on a 196-226 vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
H.R. 1528. Tax Filing Changes/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Streamline Tax Collection Which Would Weaken Health Protections for Unemployed Workers. The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill to streamline the IRS's tax collection system. While widespread agreement existed among lawmakers on the purpose of the legislation, differences arose on a specific provision in the bill which would allow waivers of health protections that have been built into the tax code. One specific waiver contained in the tax filing bill would weaken protections for unemployed workers whose jobs were lost because their employer relocated overseas. Under the "fast-track" trade law implemented in 2002, unemployed workers were to receive a 65% tax credit for the purchase of health insurance if their job loss was caused by foreign competition. The underlying tax filing bill would waive that requirement. While Progressives supported the overall goal of the legislation, they objected to the health insurance waiver and voted against the bill for that reason. Twenty-nine Democrats supported nearly every Republican in supporting the bill to diminish health insurance coverage for unemployed workers and the legislation passed 252-170. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
H.R. 1528. Tax Filing Changes/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Streamline Tax Collection Which Would Weaken Health Protections for Unemployed Workers. Officially, this vote involved legislation to streamline the IRS's tax collection system. While widespread agreement existed among lawmakers on the goal of the legislation, differences arose on a specific provision in the bill which would allow waivers of health protections that have been built into the tax code. One specific waiver contained in the tax filing bill would weaken protections for unemployed workers whose jobs were lost because their employer relocated overseas. Under the "fast-track" trade law implemented in 2002, unemployed workers were to receive a 65% tax credit for the purchase of health insurance if their job loss was caused by foreign competition. Once enacted, the underlying tax filing bill would waive that requirement. During debate on the measure, Congressman Visclosky (D-IN) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to delete those provisions which weaken consumer and labor protections. A successful motion to recommit is usually a deathblow to a piece of legislation. Progressives supported the motion to recommit based on their objections to provisions in the tax filing bill which weakened protections for U.S. workers and consumers. The motion to recommit failed on a strictly party-line vote of 199-226. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
H.R. 1528. Tax Filing Changes/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill to Streamline Tax Collection Which Would Maintain Health Protections for the Unemployed, Expand the Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families, and Revoke Tax Breaks to U.S. Firms That Relocate Overseas. Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was legislation to streamline the IRS's tax collection system by, among other things, encouraging individuals to electronically file their tax returns. While widespread agreement existed among lawmakers on the goal of the legislation, differences arose regarding a specific provision in the bill. That provision would allow waivers of health protections that have been built into the tax code. One specific waiver, for instance, would weaken protections for unemployed workers whose jobs were lost because their employer relocated overseas. Under the "fast-track" trade law implemented in 2002, unemployed workers were to receive a 65% tax credit for the purchase of health insurance if their job loss was caused by foreign competition. If enacted, the underlying tax filing bill would waive that requirement. During debate on the measure, Congressman McDermott (D-WA) offered a Democratic substitute bill which would have: 1) removed the health insurance waiver provision which lessened protection for unemployed workers; 2) extended the child tax credit to low-income families (an issue Democrats had been pursuing since passage of the 2003 tax cut); and 3) eliminated tax breaks for companies that move overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Progressives supported McDermott's substitute bill as a way to maintain protections for U.S. workers against the exportation of their jobs. Additionally, Progressives favored the child tax credit provision in McDermott's bill as a way to insure that all families, rich or poor, would benefit from increases in child tax credit. Finally, Progressives endorsed the corporate tax section of the bill as a way to penalize U.S. companies that relocate their operations overseas and thereby cost U.S. workers their jobs. On a nearly party-line vote of 196-226, the McDermott substitute bill was defeated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Would Exempt Small Businesses
from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans. Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on a bill which would allow small businesses to consolidate their resources before purchasing socalled "association" health insurance plans for their employees. Progressives voted against the rule based on their objection to a provision in the underlying legislation which would exempt association plans from state laws. Progressives argued that association plans should follow state laws because many state laws protect individuals by requiring that health insurance companies provide coverage for specific diseases or conditions such as breast cancer, autism, and mental illness. In the view of Progressives, exempting association plans from state laws would enable employers to provide health plans to their employees which may contain gaping holes in coverage for diseases, accidents, and other health-related problems. Furthermore, Progressives were concerned that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive health plans that do not provide workers with the same level of coverage as did their previous health insurance policy. Despite opposition from Progressives, the rule governing debate on the measure was adopted by a 224-199 vote margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Would Exempt Small
Businesses from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans. This procedural vote was a motion to move the previous question on a rule governing debate on a bill which would allow small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance for their employees. If successful, a motion to move the previous question ends debate and the possibility of amendment on legislation. Progressives voted against the motion based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. While Progressives support the goal of allowing small businesses to combine their resources in purchasing consolidated or "association" health insurance plans, they opposed the GOPdrafted bill because provisions in that bill would exempt those association plans from state laws. Progressives pointed out that many state laws require that health plans cover specific diseases and conditions such as breast cancer, autism, and mental illness. Exempting association plans from state laws, Progressives argued, would enable employers to provide health plans to their employees with gaping holes in coverage. Additionally, Progressives worried that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive health plans that fail to provide workers with the same level of coverage as did their previous health insurance policy. Progressives voted against the motion to move the previous question but the motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 224-198. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Health Insurance LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Passage of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an
Important Source of Government Revenue. The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill that would permanently repeal the estate tax. The estate tax is an inheritance tax on estates valued at over $3 million that are passed down from one generation to the next. Progressives opposed final passage of the estate tax repeal because, in their view, the estate tax is needed to prevent the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small group of individuals. The GOP-bill, Progressives pointed out, would only serve to benefit wealthy individuals because the estate tax only applies to estates valued in excess of $3 million; very few low and middle income taxpayers, Progressives argued, own multi-million dollar estates and would therefore receive no benefits from the legislation. Just the opposite, Progressives contended that permanently repealing the estate tax would reduce federal revenues by over $800 billion in the next ten years and would necessitate cuts in important programs such as Medicare and Social Security that benefit low and middle income earners. Despite opposition from Progressives, the estate tax repeal was adopted by the House on a vote of 264-163. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Vote on Democratic Substitute Measure to Retain, at a Reduced Rate, the Estate Tax Which
Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue. During debate on legislation which would permanently repeal the estate tax, Congressman Pomeroy (D-ND) proposed a substitute bill on behalf of the Democratic party which would have imposed a forty-nine percent tax on estates valued at over $3 million. Progressives endorsed the Pomeroy proposal because, in their view, maintaining the estate tax is necessary to insure that wealth and power does not become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. The estate tax, Progressives noted, only applies to estates that are worth over $3 million; very few low and middle income taxpayers, Progressives argued, would benefit from the estate tax repeal because those individuals are unlikely to own multi-million dollar estates. Progressives also argued that the GOP-drafted estate tax repeal would cost the U.S. Treasury over $800 billion in the next decade; that money, in the view of Progressives, would be better spent insuring that the baby-boomer generation is able to benefit from the payroll taxes they have paid into the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Pomeroy substitute bill was defeated on a 188-239 vote. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers
and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue. On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing House debate on a bill which would permanently repeal the estate tax (the estate tax is an inheritance tax that applies to estates valued in excess of $3 million). Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on House debate. Progressives voted against the rule based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. In their view, the estate tax repeal would only serve to benefit wealthy individuals because low and middle income taxpayers are unable to afford multi-million dollar estates. The estate tax, Progressives argued, is necessary to insure that wealth and power do not become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. Another concern raised by Progressives was the potential impact of the estate tax repeal on the federal budget. Repealing that tax, Progressives argued, would decrease federal revenue that could be used to address what they view as more important human needs such as Social Security, education, and health care. The rule governing debate on the estate tax repeal was adopted on a nearly party-line vote of 230-199. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy
Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue. When parents die and bequeath their estate to their children, that estate is subject to an inheritance tax known as the estate tax. In the $1.35 trillion tax cut package enacted in 2001, provisions were included to phase-out the estate tax by 2010. Those provisions, however, would be nullified in 2011 and the estate tax would be restored to its pre-2001 level. For the fourth time in fifteen months, GOP leaders introduced legislation that would make the estate tax elimination permanent (the estate tax repeal has, to date, been unable to pass the Senate). Progressives opposed the estate tax repeal because that tax-which only applies to estates valued at over $3 million-would provide a windfall of benefits to the wealthy; low and middle income earners, Progressives argued, would receive no benefit from the estate tax repeal because those taxpayers are unlike to own multi-million dollar estates. The estate tax, Progressives argued, is necessary to insure that wealth and power do not become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. Moreover, Progressives argued that the estate tax repeal would deprive the federal budget of funding that could be used for human needs such as education, health care, and environmental protection. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous questiona procedural motion that, if successful, ends debate and the possibility of amendment-on a bill to permanently eliminate the estate tax. Progressives opposed the procedural motion based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. The motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 227-200. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
S. 342. Child Abuse Prevention and Adoption Program/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Republican-Drafted Bill to
Prevent Child Abuse Which Was Intended to Deflect Criticism Away From Republican Stances on Childrens' Issues. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question-a procedural motion which, if successful, ends debate and the possibility of amendment-to provide for House consideration of a conference report which would reauthorize $200 million in grants for the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (when the House and Senate pass legislation in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile those differences; a conference report is the product of those negotiations). That 1996 Act provides financial assistance to community outreach programs for child abuse prevention activities. While Progressives supported the reauthorization of the 1996 law, they voted in opposition to the procedural motion to proceed as a way to protest the GOP's positions on child issues. During House debate on the motion to move the previous question, Progressives admonished the GOP for excluding low-income families from receiving the child tax credit increase that was included in the recently-adopted $550 billion tax cut measure. Progressives argued that GOP leaders scheduled a vote on the child abuse prevention bill not because they considered child abuse a pressing issue but rather to shift the public's focus away from the child tax credit controversy. On a straight party-line vote, the motion to move the previous question was adopted by a 226-200 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language During
Conference Committee Negotiations Because Senate Version of Bill Does Not Include Tax Breaks for Wealthy
Individuals. In response to the outcry from Democrats over a section in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from benefiting from the child tax credit increase contained in the tax legislation, GOP leaders in the House and Senate drafted legislation to address Democrats' concerns. Differences in the House and Senate bills, however, required the formation of a conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the legislation. During House debate on the issue, Congressman Rangel (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language. In the view of Progressives, the Senate bill was preferable to the House version because it did not contain additional tax breaks for individuals earning over $150,000 a year and would provide immediate assistance to low-income families who would benefit from the child tax credit increase. Progressives endorsed Rangel's motion because, in their view, the additional tax breaks for higher-income taxpayers contained in the House version were unjustified. Moreover, they argued that low-income taxpayers should receive immediate benefits from the child tax credit increase (the House bill would have delayed those benefits by one year). The motion to instruct was narrowly adopted on a 205-201 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Extend the Child Tax Credit to
Low-Income Families and Provide Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals. On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on legislation which would extend the child tax credit to low-income families, provide additional tax reductions for individuals who earn over $150,000 annually, and reduce the tax burden on military families. (Prior to House floor consideration of a measure, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be passed to set parameters on debate.) Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In their view, the tax breaks included in the bill for individuals who earn over $150,000 a year were unjustified; the recently-passed $350 billion tax cut proposal, Progressives argued, contained plenty of tax reductions for wealthy individuals. Progressives supported narrowly drafted legislation which would limit tax breaks to low-income families who, in their view, where neglected in the GOP-drafted tax cut bill. The rule governing debate passed the House on a 224-201 vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Extend the Child Tax
Credit to Low-Income Families and Provide Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals. The recently adopted $350 billion tax cut package contained numerous provisions--such as reductions in the top marginal income tax rate and tax cuts on dividends income--that would benefit wealthy taxpayers. In the view of Progressives, relatively few tax breaks were contained in the bill which would benefit low and middle income taxpayers. One provision which increased the child tax credit, however, was purported to benefit low-income taxpayers. However, after passage of the legislation, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) discovered that the child tax credit increase from $600 to $1000 which was contained in the tax package would not be available to low-income families. Upon their discovery, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all legislation until the GOP extended the child tax break to low income families. In an effort to appease Democrats, GOP leaders drafted legislation to extend the child credit to low income families; also included in the legislation, however, were additional tax breaks for individuals who earn in excess of $150,000 a year. Tax reductions for military families, which Democrats also supported, were included in the legislation as well. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question, a motion which, if successful, ends debate and the possibility of amendment on a rule governing debate on the matter. Progressives opposed the motion based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In their view, the additional tax breaks included in the bill were unjustified; Progressives only supported legislation which would extend the child credit to low-income families and provide additional financial assistance to military families. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 225-201. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Passage of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for
Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases. The subject of this vote was passage of a bill which would transfer legal jurisdiction on class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench. The legislation would also make the transfer of authority retroactive; pending class action cases against corporate criminals such as Enron and WorldCom, then, would be transferred to the federal court system. In the view of Progressives, the proposed rules changes to class action lawsuits would hinder the ability of victims of corporate fraud or other criminal acts from receiving timely justice and reparations. Progressives argued that the federal bench is already overburdened with cases; providing federal courts with an even broader legal jurisdiction, Progressives noted, would result in lengthy delays in judicial action. Moreover, Progressives opposed the retroactivity provision contained in the bill; in their view, victims of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and WorldCom should receive compensation in a timely manner. Despite their opposition, the legislation was adopted on a 253-170 vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and
Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in
Those Cases. During debate on GOP-drafted legislation which would transfer class action cases from state courts to the federal bench, Congressman Weiner (D-NY) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to delete a section in the bill which makes the rules changes to class action lawsuits contained in the bill retroactive. (If successful, a motion to recommit sends the measure back to committee and is usually a deathblow to the legislation.) Progressives supported the motion to recommit; during debate on the legislation, Progressives pointed out that the retroactivity provision would cause judicial delays for pending lawsuits against known corporate criminals such as Enron, Arthur Anderson, and WorldCom. The motion to recommit the bill was defeated by a 185-240 vote margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Designed to Insure Timely Access to Justice
for Victims of Corporate Fraud or Misconduct By Maintaining State Involvement in Class Action Lawsuits. The Bush Administration has made several efforts in recent years to limit corporate liability in cases involving medical malpractice and asbestos exposure. In a move to limit the number of class action rulings against corporations which defraud or cause serious injury to their employees or clients, the administration and GOP leaders introduced legislation which would transfer authority on the handling of class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench. Progressives opposed the GOP-drafted legislation; they argued that federal courts are already overburdened with cases and that the transfer of authority to the federal courts would delay justice for victims of corporate fraud or other criminal misconduct. In an effort to ease the additional caseload on federal courts, Democrats proposed a substitute bill which would have established a multi-district litigation panel to consolidate class action cases in state courts for pretrial proceedings. Progressives endorsed the Democratic bill as a way to insure timely judicial rulings on class action lawsuits. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to the Democratic bill and the measure was rejected 170-255. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Strike a Provision in Bill Which Prevents States From Enforcing Their Antitrust
and Consumer Protection Laws in Class Action Cases. GOP-drafted legislation to change the rules on class action lawsuits would require federal courts, and not state courts, to decide those lawsuits in a wide range of cases. Progressives noted that federal courts already have more cases than they can handle; adding class action lawsuits to their list of duties, Progressives argued, would delay justice for plaintiffs who have suffered from criminal misconduct by corporations for months or years. During debate on the legislation, Congresswoman Lofgren (D-CA) offered an amendment which would have eliminated a provision in the bill which prevented state or local prosecutors from enforcing state antitrust and consumer protection laws in state courts (the bill required federal courts to handle those cases). Progressives voted in support of Lofgren's amendment as a way to insure timely justice for corporate misdeeds. Moreover, in the view of Progressives, corporate misbehavior should be subjected to state as well as federal prosecution. The Lofgren proposal was rejected on a 186-234 vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Prevent U.S. Corporations From Merging With Foreign Companies As a Way
to Avoid Culpability for Illegal Actions. During debate on a bill which would transfer the jurisdiction of class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee proposed an amendment which would have prevented U.S. corporations from merging with foreign companies for the purpose of avoiding liability in a class action lawsuit. Progressives supported the Jackson-Lee proposal as a way to insure that those U.S. corporations that commit fraud or other illegal activities against individuals are held legally accountable for their actions. The Jackson-Lee amendment was defeated by a 185-238 vote margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and
Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in
Those Cases. Prior to House floor consideration of a bill, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to govern debate on the legislation. On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule handling debate on a bill which would transfer jurisdiction on class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench when: 1) the plaintiffs and the defendant are from different states; 2) the number of plaintiffs exceed one-hundred; or 3) the expected damages are in excess of $2 million. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, the measure would restrict the ability of plaintiffs to receive timely justice for criminal acts against them. Progressives pointed out that federal courts are already overburdened; adding class action lawsuits to their caseload, Progressives argued, would result in lengthy delays in judicial action. Also of concern to Progressives was a provision in the bill making the proposed rules changes to class action suits retroactive. Progressives pointed out that the retroactivity provision would apply the rules changes to already-filed class action suits against corporate criminals such as Enron and WorldCom; defrauded employees and clients of those corporations, then, would be required to wait for federal judicial action before receiving reparations. Based on their objections to the underlying legislation, Progressives voted against the rule for debate. Despite their opposition, the rule was adopted on a 235-188 vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and
Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in
Those Cases. Republicans have made several efforts in recent years to impose limits on the amount a plaintiff may receive in damages for lawsuits involving medical malpractice and asbestos exposure. In a move to further reform the tort system, GOP leaders introduced legislation which would require federal courts--and not state courts--to handle class action lawsuits in cases where the plaintiffs are from a different state than the defendant, at least one-hundred plaintiffs are involved in the case, or if the expected damages exceeds $2 million (these qualifications would apply to nearly all class action lawsuits). The legislation would also make the rules changes retroactive, thereby transferring already-filed class action suits from state to federal courts. In the view of Progressives, the proposed rules changes to class action lawsuits would hinder the ability of victims of corporate fraud or other criminal acts from receiving timely justice and reparations. In the course of debate, Progressives argued that the federal bench is already overburdened with cases; requiring federal courts to handle most class action lawsuits, Progressives noted, would delay justice for months or even years. Second, the rules changes contained in the bill would be retroactive. Progressives pointed out that the retroactivity would apply to already-filed class action lawsuits against Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, and other known corporate criminals. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their view, the policy changes would protect corporate wrongdoers against the individuals that they harm and would enable fraudulent corporations and their executives to escape accountability for their illegal activities. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question on a rule governing debate on the measure. If successful, the procedural motion would end debate and the possibility of amendment on the rule. Progressives voted in opposition to the motion to proceed based on their objections to the underlying legislation. On a 229-193 vote, the motion to allow the bill to proceed in the legislative process was adopted. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
H.R. 2115. FAA Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Reauthorize Federal Spending for the Federal
Aviation Administration and Privatize Air-Traffic Control Functions. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion which would allow House consideration to proceed on legislation which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Progressives voted in opposition to the procedural motion to move the previous question on the FAA reauthorization-a motion which cuts off debate and the possibility of amendment-based on their objection to a provision in the bill which would privatize air-traffic control functions in airports. In June of 2002, President Bush issued an executive order determining that air-traffic control was not inherently a government function, thereby allowing air-traffic control duties to be privatized (occupations that are determined to be "inherently governmental" cannot be privatized). In response to Bush's executive order, Republicans included provisions in the FAA reauthorization which would privatize air traffic controllers, computer system and maintenance workers, and flight service stations operated by the FAA. Progressives were concerned that private companies would focus greater attention on profits rather than public safety. Air-traffic control, Progressives argued, is an occupation which requires a tremendous mental focus and places enormous pressures on individuals. In the view of Progressives, air-traffic control operations should not be conducted by private companies whose hiring standards or training programs might be inferior to the standards and training extended to public employees. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 219-195 and the legislation was allowed to proceed. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
H. Res. 252. Food Biotech Products/Vote to Adopt a Resolution Expressing Congressional Support for President Bush's
Challenge to European Moratorium on the Trade of Genetically-Modified U.S. Crops. While few studies have been devoted to the health effects of genetically modified (GM) foods, some scientists claim that a link exists between the resurgence of infectious diseases and genetic modifications in the U.S. food supply. In contrast to Americans, Europeans have voiced strong opposition to GM foods and, in response, the European Union (EU) has imposed a five-year moratorium on the purchase of GM crops. The Bush Administration, however, views European skepticism toward GM foods as unfounded because those crops are subjected to USDA, FDA, and EPA approval. Earlier this year, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced that the U.S. would file a case against the EU on the grounds that restricting the sale of GM foods to Europe was in violation of international trade laws set forth by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The subject of this vote was a resolution expressing support for the administration's challenge to the EU moratorium which rejects the European importation of GM food from the United States. Progressives voted in opposition to the resolution because, in their view, the potential consequences of genetically-modified foods to humans and the environment demand further investigation. Moreover, Progressives argued that the U.S. has no right to force GM foods on the rest of the world and especially those European countries whose citizens reject GM foods. The resolution expressing support for the administration's position was adopted overwhelmingly on a vote of 339-80. ENVIRONMENT— Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Passage of a Bill Intended to Regulate the Internet Gambling Industry Which Contained
Loopholes to Prevent Enforcement. The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill which would prevent the use of credit cards for internet gambling. Progressives supported the spirit of the legislation because, in their view, strong federal regulations on the multi-billion dollar internet gambling industry should be imposed to protect consumers. However, Progressives opposed the House bill because, in their estimation, the legislation contained numerous loopholes that would counteract the gambling restrictions contained in the legislation. One loophole that Progressives objected to, for instance, would exempt state-regulated internet gambling venues from the credit card restrictions contained in the legislation. Progressives argued that the state exemption would nullify any impact of the legislation on curtailing internet gambling and they voted against the bill on those grounds. Despite Progressives' opposition, the legislation passed the House by a 319-104 vote margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Internet Gambling Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Vote to Close a Loophole Contained in Bill Which Would Prevent Enforcement of
Regulations on Internet Gambling. During House debate on a measure which would prevent the use of credit cards for internet gambling activities, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) offered an amendment which would have eliminated a provision in the legislation which exempted states with state-regulated internet gambling sites from the internet gambling restrictions contained in the bill. In the view of Progressives, the multi-billion dollar internet gambling industry should be subjected to tough federal regulations. The House bill, they worried, contained too many loopholes that would ease the gambling restrictions contained in the legislation. Progressives argued, for instance, that the state exemption contained in the bill would significantly diminish any impacts of the legislation on curbing internet gambling. Progressives endorsed the Sensenbrenner amendment as a way to close the loophole for state-regulated internet gambling venues. The Sensenbrenner amendment was defeated on a vote of 186-237. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Internet Gambling Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Intended to Regulate the Internet Gambling Industry
Which Contained Loopholes to Prevent Enforcement. Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on legislation which would require credit card companies to block gambling transactions over the internet. Since most internet casinos depend on electronic payments for placing bets, lawmakers intended to siphon off the flow of money to those casinos through passage of the legislation. Progressives support limitations on the multi-billion dollar internet gambling industry-an industry that is not subject to strong federal regulations-but opposed the House bill because it contained a provision which would exempt those states with state-regulated internet gambling venues from the credit card restrictions that were contained in the bill. In the view of Progressives, the state exemption provision provided internet casinos with an enormous loophole that could be easily exploited by the industry. Progressives argued that the state exemption contained in the legislation would nullify the impact of the legislation on curbing internet gambling and they voted in opposition to the measure on those grounds. Progressives voted against the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation but the rule passed by a 259-158 vote margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Internet Gambling Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Intended to Regulate the Internet Gambling Industry
Which Contained Loopholes to Prevent Enforcement. Internet gambling has been the subject of congressional debate for the last two years. In an effort to restrict the multibillion dollar industry, legislation was drafted in the House which would mandate that credit card companies block gambling transactions over the internet. Since most internet casinos rely on some form of electronic payment for placing bets, lawmakers hoped the bill would siphon off the flow of money to those casinos. Progressives support restrictions on internet gambling-which is an industry that is not subject to strong federal scrutiny-but opposed a provision in the House bill which would exempt those states with state-regulated internet gambling venues from the provisions in the bill. In the view of Progressives, the state exemption provided an enormous loophole that could be easily exploited by internet casinos. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their view, the state exemption that was contained in the legislation would nullify the impact of the legislation on curbing internet gambling. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion which would allow House consideration of the legislation to proceed. Progressives voted in opposition to move the previous question, a procedural motion which ends debate and the possibility of amendment, but the motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 222-196. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Internet Gambling Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
S. 222, S. 273. Zuni Water and Grand Teton National Park/Protest Vote Against Rules of Debate on Two Non-
Controversial Bills In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income
Families. Officially, this vote pertained to a rule governing debate on two non-controversial pieces of legislation; a bill to extend water rights to Zuni Indians and legislation to authorize the secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,406 acres of state lands within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Prior to House consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. While bipartisan agreement existed on those two pieces of legislation, Democrats voted against the rule based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-passed $350 billion tax cut package. After the tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats discovered that the eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit section of that legislation would have prevented low-income families from receiving the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. To force action on the issue, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until the child tax credit eligibility requirements were amended. Progressives supported the Democratic strategy and voted against the rule because, in their view, excluding low-income families from the child tax credit increase contained in the tax-cut bill was unfair. In the view of Progressives, low and middle income families should be the prime beneficiaries of tax cuts because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The rule governing debate was passed by a 229-175 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
S. 273, S. 222. Zuni Water and Grand Teton National Park/Protest Vote Against Allowing Consideration of Two Non-
Controversial Bills In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income
Families. Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question-thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment-on a rule governing debate on two non-controversial bills; a measure to extend water rights to Zuni Indians and a bill to authorize the secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,406 acres of state lands within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. While bipartisan agreement existed on those two pieces of legislation, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recentlyadopted $350 billion tax cut package. After the tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats discovered that the eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit section of that legislation would have prevented low-income families from receiving the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In an effort to force action on extending the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until the child tax credit eligibility requirements were amended. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the motion to move the previous question based on their opposition to the exclusion of lowincome families from the benefits of the child tax credit increase that was contained in the tax-cut measure. In the view of Progressives, low and middle income families should be the prime recipients of tax cuts; denying the benefit of the child tax credit increase to low-income families, Progressives argued, was unfair because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 220-194 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
H.R. 1474. Digital Checks/Protest Vote Against Allowing Consideration of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to
Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families. Officially, the subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question-thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment-on a rule governing debate on a bill which would modernize check writing by allowing digital checks to be transmitted over the internet (digital checks are paper reproductions of an original check from an electronically transmitted image). Although bipartisan agreement existed on the legislation to allow digital checks, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit section of that legislation-which Democrats learned about after the bill was signed into law-would have prevented low-income families from receiving the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In a move to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to lowincome families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until the child tax credit eligibility requirements were amended. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the digital checks bill based on their opposition to the exemption for low-income families that was contained in the child tax credit section of the tax bill. In the view of Progressives, tax cuts should be targeted to low and middle income families because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to move the previous question on the digital checks bill was adopted by a vote of 220-198. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
H.R. 760. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Passage of a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation
and Extraction" Abortions. The subject of this vote was passage of legislation which would ban a medical procedure known as a late term (or "partial birth") abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court granted abortion rights to women in its landmark 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, social conservatives have lobbied Congress to enact restrictions on those rights. With the GOP now in control of the House, Senate, and the White House, passage of the legislation appears inevitable. However, the ban on late term abortions will no doubt be the subject of a legal challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2000, the high court ruled that a Nebraska law banning late term abortions was unconstitutional; Progressives and other pro-choice lawmakers hope the current legislation will similarly be struck down. Progressives voted in opposition to the late term abortion ban because, in their view, the proposal violates a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, is in conflict with the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling on abortion rights, and is therefore unconstitutional. Despite Progressives' opposition, the late term abortion ban was adopted by the House on a 282-139 vote. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
H.R. 760. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights
By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions. The issue of abortion incites strong and polarized preferences among lawmakers and the public to a degree that is not present in most other areas of public policy. In a effort to find middle ground on legislation which would ban a medical procedure known as a late-term abortion, Congresswoman Baldwin (D-WI) offered a motion to recommit the measure to committee with instructions to add a provision which would have allowed late-term abortions if a doctor determines that the procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother. (The motion to recommit is one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation; if successful, the motion sends a bill back to committee, is usually accompanied with specific instructions to amend the bill, and is often a deathblow to the legislation.) Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit as a way to prevent an outright ban on late-term abortions as specified in the GOP-bill; in the view of Progressives, provisions in the Baldwin amendment which allow a mother's doctor to determine whether an abortion is necessary would help to insure that late-term abortions are still available and legal for women. The motion to recommit was defeated by a 165-256 vote margin. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
H.R. 760. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By
Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions. Ever since abortion rights were first guaranteed to women in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade, social conservatives have lobbied Congress to adopt legislative restrictions on those rights. With the GOP now in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, legislative restrictions on abortion rights appear attainable. On this vote, House GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on a bill which would ban the medical procedure known as a late-term (or "partial birth") abortion (prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate). Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, women should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; a woman's body, they argued, should not be controlled by legislation. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and the measure was adopted on a 280-138 vote. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
H.J. Res. 4. Flag Desecration/Passage of a Bill to Restrict Political Speech by Criminalizing the Destruction of the U.S.
Flag. For the fifth time in fourteen years, the House took up legislation that would ban the destruction of the U.S. flag. Progressives voted in opposition to the ban because, in their view, defacing the U.S. flag is a protected form of political speech under the First Amendment. The view of Progressives, it should be noted, is supported by a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. In a flag-burning case considered in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment. To pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, a two-thirds majority vote must be obtained in both the House and Senate. The necessary majority was obtained in the House on a 300-125 vote. However, four previous attempts to add a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration have been defeated in the Senate. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
H.J. Res. 4. Flag Desecration/Vote to Protect Political Speech By Weakening the Proposed Ban on the Destruction of the
U.S. Flag. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protected flag burning as a form of political speech. Since the 1989 decision, the House has passed five resolutions which have called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag (none of those resolutions were passed by the Senate). During House debate on a fifth attempt to ban flag desecration, Congressman Watt (D-NC) proposed an amendment which would have weakened the bill by limiting Congress's authority to ban flag desecration to those activities that fall outside the purview of the First Amendment. Progressives supported the Watt proposal because, in their view, damaging the U.S. flag is a Constitutionally-protected form of political speech. Had Watt's amendment passed, Congress would likely have been unable to prohibit flag destruction because, by the Supreme Court's analysis, all activities that deface the flag are protected by the First Amendment. The Watt amendment was defeated on a 129-296 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
S. 763. Birch Bayh Courthouse/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican
Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families. Officially, the subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and pass a bill that would name a federal courthouse in Indianapolis after Indiana's former Democratic Senator Birch Evan Bayh (Senator Bayh served in the Senate from 1963 until 1981). The suspension procedure-which is employed more frequently for non-controversial measureslimits the time available for debate, bars amendments, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Although Senators from both parties held Senator Bayh in high esteem and supported renaming the Indianapolis courthouse after their former colleague, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have excluded low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In an effort to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats pursued a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote on the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the Birch Bayh bill based on their opposition to the provision in the tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, low and middle income families should be the prime beneficiaries of tax breaks because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to suspend House rules failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote and was rejected on a vote of 235-179. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
S. 273. Grand Teton National Park/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican
Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families. Officially, the subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and pass a bill that would authorize the secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,406 acres of state lands within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. The suspension procedure-which is most often used for non-controversial measures-limits the time available for debate, bars amendments, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Although bipartisan agreement existed on the Grand Teton National Park legislation, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have prevented low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In an effort to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote on the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the Grand Teton bill based on their opposition to the provision in the tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, tax breaks should be targeted to low and middle income families because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to suspend House rules failed to garner the necessary twothirds majority vote and the Grand Teton bill was defeated by a 217-198 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
S. 222. Zuni Water Rights/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican Refusal to
Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families. Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and pass a bill that would approve a water rights agreement between the Zuni Indian tribe and non-Indian communities in Arizona. The suspension procedure-which is usually reserved for non-controversial measures-limits the time available for debate, bars amendments to the legislation, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Lawmakers, however, were united in their support for Zuni water rights. Democratic opposition to the bill reflected a controversy over a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have prevented low-income families from obtaining the child tax credit increase from $600 to $1000 which was contained in the tax package. In an effort to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to lowincome families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote to change the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the Zuni water rights bill to demonstrate opposition to the provision in the tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from benefiting from the child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, tax breaks should be targeted to low and middle income families because those individuals are most in need of financial assistance. The motion to suspend the rules failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority vote and the Zuni water rights bill was therefore defeated on a 224-188 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 191 Providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Passage of a Conference Report Containing $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. When legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, the majority and minority party leaders in both chambers of Congress select conferees from their respective bodies to participate in a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two bills and produce a conference report (which is the final version of the legislation). The conference report is then reintroduced into the House and Senate and, if both legislative bodies pass the report, the measure is sent to the president for final approval (or a veto). The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report which would provide $350 billion over eleven years in tax cuts. Progressives voted in opposition to the tax-cut conference report because, in their view, the bill provided an excessive amount of tax breaks for high-income individuals and not enough assistance for low and middle income taxpayers. Language contained in the conference report, for instance, would cut taxes on capital gains and dividend income and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate from 39.6% to 35% (the highest income tax rate applies only to income in excess of $1,171,000). These tax breaks, Progressives argued, would disproportionately benefit wealthy taxpayers and increase federal budget deficits in future years. Rising budget deficits, Progressives argued, would reduce the availability of funding for basic human needs such as health care, Social Security, and education. The conference report was adopted 231-200 and the measure was subsequently sent to the president for his signature. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Conference Report Containing $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That
Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic
Spending. When legislation passes the House and Senate in different versions, a conference committee is convened to reconcile the differences between the two bills and produce a conference report; the final version of the measure. The conference report is then reintroduced in both chambers of Congress for final approval. If both the House and Senate agree to the conference report, the measure is then sent to the White House for a presidential signature or veto. On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule to allow for House consideration of the conference report providing $350 billion over eleven years in tax reductions. Before legislative matters can be considered in the House, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership). In the view of Progressives, the tax-cut conference report was overly-generous to high-income individuals and failed to include enough tax reductions for low and middle income taxpayers. Provisions in the conference report, for instance, would cut taxes on capital gains and dividend income and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate (which applies only to income above $1,171,000) from 39.6% to 35%. These tax breaks, Progressives argued, would disproportionately benefit wealthy taxpayers and inflate future federal budget deficits. Despite unanimous opposition from the Democrats, the motion to allow for House consideration of the conference report was adopted on a 221-205 vote. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
H.R. 2185. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment
Benefits to a Limited Number of Jobless Workers. The economic downturn which began in late 2000 has caused nearly 2.7 million Americans to lose their jobs. One of the few federal programs designed to assist unemployed workers provides those workers with $260 a week for thirteen weeks after their state unemployment benefits have expired. However, an estimated 1.1 million laid-off workers who have been unable to find new jobs will soon exhaust their sixteen week federal benefits and would be left without a steady source of income while they are searching for new employment. To address the issue, GOP leaders drafted a bill which would extend the federal unemployment insurance program through December 31, 2003 (the federal unemployment insurance program is a temporary program which requires a congressional reauthorization every six months and was due to expire on May 31, 2003). Progressives noted that the six-month extension of the federal unemployment insurance program would not extend the eligibility of those 1.1 million workers who would have already exhausted their state and federal unemployment benefits; only recently unemployed workers would benefit from the program's extension. In the view of Progressives, the GOP-bill was a half-hearted effort that failed to provide the necessary level of financial support for those workers who would soon become ineligible for any additional unemployment benefits. During House debate on the legislation, Congressman Cardin (D-MD) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to extend workers' eligibility for federal unemployment benefits by twenty-six weeks. Progressives supported the motion to recommit-which is one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation-as a way to provide assistance to jobless workers whose unemployment benefits are due to expire. The motion to recommit was rejected on a 205-222 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Passage of a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of
"Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act. This vote involved passage of a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill which would fund defense-related activities in 2004. Provisions in the bill would exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The bill would also provide funding to research new "low-yield" nuclear weapons and grant the Pentagon greater flexibility over civilian personnel issues. Progressives voted in opposition to passage because, in their view, federal money should not be spent to develop new nuclear weapons systems. Moreover, Progressives voiced opposition to the environmental exemptions for the Defense Department and disapproved of the provisions restricting the rights of civilian defense employees. The defense authorization was adopted by the House on a 361-68 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research
and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species
Act. In the House, one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a measure to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During debate on the 2004 defense authorization bill, Congressman Cooper (D-TN) made a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that would have established additional protections for civilian employees in the Defense Department. The Cooper instructions were inspired by language contained in the bill that would provide the Defense Secretary with greater control over civilian defense employees. Progressives supported the Cooper motion as a way to protect the rights of civil servants against possible abuses by the Secretary of Defense regarding hiring, placement, and pay raises. The motion to recommit was defeated by a 204-224 margin. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Restrict the Export of Powerful U.S.-Made Computers that Could
Enable Foreign Countries to Develop Weapons Systems. Under current law, U.S. exports of high-performance computers to foreign countries are regulated by a criteria known as MTOPS (which stands for million theoretical operations per second). The MTOPS standard provides a measure of the computational strength of a computer; those computers with MTOPS scores that exceed a certain level are not permitted to be sold abroad because they pose a risk to U.S. security. During debate on the 2004 defense authorization bill, Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) proposed an amendment which would terminate the MTOPS standard and require that the administration, in conjunction with the Congress, develop a new standard by which to gauge computational power. Progressives supported Dreier's proposal because, in their view, the MTOPS criteria was outdated; a new standard, they argued, was necessary to insure that powerful U.S. computers were not used by foreign countries to develop weapons systems, infiltrate U.S. intelligence databases, or otherwise threaten U.S. security. Dreier's proposal was narrowly rejected on a 207-217 vote. WAR & PEACE— Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Castigate France For Its Anti-War Stance on Iraq. The recent war in Iraq inspired great animosity among U.S. leaders toward France. In the House cafeteria, for instance, Representative Robert Ney (R-OH) renamed French fries "freedom fries" as a symbolic denouncement of France's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. More importantly, cooperation between the U.S. and France on non-military issues has suffered since U.N. negotiations between the two countries broke down and on several occasions the U.S. has shunned France in the international arena. More recently, Congressman Saxton (R-NJ) offered an amendment to the 2004 defense authorization bill which would repeal the requirement that U.S. military officers serving as diplomats to France in defenserelated areas are brigadier generals or rear admirals (which are two of the highest military ranks one can achieve). By Saxton's own admission, his move was intended as a way to castigate France for its anti-war stance. Progressives opposed the Saxton amendment because, in their view, the measure would needlessly exacerbate tensions between the U.S. and France. Effective diplomacy, Progressives argue, requires cooperation rather than antagonism between world leaders. House Republicans, many of whom in recent months have strongly denounced the French in speeches on the floor, voted nearly unanimously in support of Saxton's amendment and the measure was adopted on a 302-123 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Transfer Funding for the Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear
Weapons into Conventional Weapons Research. The Bush Administration has made clear its desire to develop so-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons (in contrast "highyield" nuclear weapons such as the hydrogen bomb, low-yield weapons would have limited explosive capabilities and could be used to eradicate concentrated targets). "Low-yield" nuclear weapons, the administration argued, are needed to explode underground targets containing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden. In the 2004 defense authorization bill, $15 million was provided for the development of "earth penetrator" weapons-lowyield nuclear weapons designed to explode underground targets-and $6 million in research funding to develop low-yield nuclear weapons for other purposes. During debate on the defense authorization bill, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (DCA) proposed an amendment which would have transferred the $21 million designated for low-yield nuclear weapons research and development into conventional weapons research programs. Progressives supported Tauscher's proposal because, in their view, developing new uses for nuclear weapons poses grave risks to humans and the environment; conventional weapons, Progressives argued, would be just as effective as low-yield nuclear weapons in destroying underground targets. Progressives also contended that providing funds for nuclear weapons research could encourage other countries to develop nuclear arsenals of their own, thereby triggering a second nuclear arms race (the first nuclear arms race occurred during the Cold War between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.). The Tauscher amendment was defeated on a tally of 199-226. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Insure that Women Soldiers Have Access to Abortions When
Stationed Overseas. During House debate on the $400.5 billion defense authorization bill, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) proposed a measure which would have allowed women to obtain abortions on military bases located overseas as long as the abortion was privately funded. Progressives supported Sanchez's amendment as a way to provide women based overseas with the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (current law forbids abortions on military bases located overseas). The Sanchez amendment was defeated by a 201-227 margin. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
H.R. 2185. Unemployment Benefits/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment
Benefits to a Limited Number of Jobless Workers. Before debate is allowed on legislation in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership). The subject of this vote was a rule to provide for House consideration of a bill to extend the federal unemployment benefits program through December 31, 2003. Progressives pointed out that the GOP-drafted bill to extend the federal unemployment insurance program by six months would not extend the eligibility of those 1.1 million workers who exhausted their state and federal unemployment benefits and were ineligible for additional benefits; only recently unemployed workers would benefit from the program's extension. In the view of Progressives, the GOP-bill was a mediocre effort that failed to provide the necessary level of financial support for those workers who ineligible for any additional unemployment benefits. Progressives opposed the rule because they opposed the GOP-bill. On a straight party line vote, the rule was adopted by the House by a 216-201 margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
H.R. 2185. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment
Benefits to a Limited Number of Jobless Workers. Federal unemployment benefits are one of the few protections afforded to individuals who have lost their jobs. Those benefits-which are worth $260 a week for thirteen weeks-only take effect after a worker has exhausted his/her state unemployment benefits (which are usually provided for a twenty-six week period) and remains unemployed. Due to a sluggish economy, the jobless rate is currently at six percent, an eight-year high, and 8.8 million people are unemployed. Many of those unemployed workers have been unable to find new jobs and have exhausted all their unemployment benefits. In an effort to provide financial protections for the unemployed, Senate Democrats have pursued a strategy of proposing amendments which would have expanded the benefits an additional twenty-six weeks to every piece of legislation considered in the Senate; GOP leaders, however, only wanted a thirteen-week extension of those benefits. House Democrats, whose procedural rights are limited compared to Senators, voted unanimously in opposition to a bill which would reauthorize funding for the National Transportation Safety Board and cited the House's failure to consider extending unemployment benefits as the sole reason for their objection. In a last-minute move to address the issue, GOP leaders drafted a bill to extend the federal unemployment benefit program to December 31, 2003 (the program was due to expire on May 31, 2003). Progressives noted that extending the federal unemployment insurance program by six months (which is equal to twenty-six weeks) would not provide financial assistance to those 1.1 million workers who have already exhausted their state and federal unemployment benefits; only recently unemployed workers would benefit from the program's extension. In the view of Progressives, the GOP-bill was a half-hearted effort that failed to provide the necessary level of financial support for those 1.1 million workers who need it the most (those who are no longer eligible to receive unemployment benefits). The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) to allow for a vote on a rule governing debate on a bill to extend the unemployment benefit program through December 2003. Progressives voted against the motion based on their objections to the GOPdrafted legislation; in their view, a twenty-six week extension of unemployment benefits was needed to protect unemployed workers who are ineligible for any additional state or federal unemployment benefits. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 217-203 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which operates on behalf of the majority party leadership). However, if the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans proposed a resolution to waive the requirement which would allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as required under normal House practices. Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their view, the tax reductions heavily favored wealthy individuals (who would disproportionately benefit from cutting the dividends tax and reducing the highest marginal income tax rate) and failed to included enough tax breaks for low and middle income taxpayers. Additionally, Progressives considered the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary maneuvering as a violation of their procedural rights. The motion to adopt the resolution allowing same-day consideration of the tax cut bill was passed 218-202. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Containing $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. Prior to House consideration of legislation, agreement must be reached on a rule which sets parameters on the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership). If the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, however, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration, Republicans offered a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a resolution to waive the requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as required under normal House practices. Progressives objected to the resolution to waive the two-thirds requirement for two main reasons. First, in the view of Progressives, the tax cut bill heavily favored wealthy individuals (by cutting the dividends tax and reducing the highest marginal income tax rate) and included too few tax breaks for low and middle income taxpayers. Second, Progressives viewed the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary maneuvering as a violation of their procedural rights. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 221-202 vote. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and
Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act. In an effort to further restrict amending activity on the 2004 defense authorization bill, the House Rules Committee (which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership) drafted a second rule for the purpose of preventing floor votes on certain Democratic amendments to the bill. Rules are legislative items that limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amendments. Progressives opposed the second rule because, in comparison to the first rule which was adopted on May 21, it afforded the minority party even fewer opportunities to amend the legislation. Democrats voted unanimously against the second rule but it was adopted on a 222-199 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research
and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species
Act. Democrats raised numerous objections to the $400.5 billion defense authorization bill-including provisions to restrict the rights of civilian Pentagon employees and exempt the Department of Defense from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act-and drafted amendments to address their concerns. Under the rule adopted by the House (prior to floor consideration, a rule must be adopted governing debate on the bill), several of the Democratic amendments would be considered. Midway through House debate on the defense authorization, however, the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) drafted a new rule to further restrict Democratic amendments. By specifying exactly which amendments could be considered on the House floor, the rule protected the majority party from casting tough votes on issues raised by the minority party. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on the new rule to further restrict Democratic amendments to the defense authorization bill. Progressives voted in opposition to the more restrictive rule because it would allow them even fewer opportunities to propose changes to the defense authorization during floor debate. Democrats unanimously opposed the motion allow consideration of the revised rule but, on a straight party line vote, the motion was passed 222-199. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Allow the Secretary of Defense to Assign Members of the Armed
Forces to Border Protection Activities. Congressman Goode (R-VA) offered an amendment to the $400.5 billion defense authorization bill which would allow the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the armed forces to border protection activities. Progressives opposed the Goode proposal because, in their view, military personnel, who are trained for combat rather than border policing, should be reserved for military operations. During debate on the issue, Progressives also pointed out that border protection falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and not the military; border protection, Progressives argued, should therefore be conducted by employees of the DHS. The Goode measure was adopted on a 250-179 vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act. During House debate on a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) proposed an amendment to weaken language in the bill which defines a critical habitat (a habitat where threatened or endangered species reside) under the Endangered Species Act. In the view of Progressives, the Hunter amendment was environmentally-irresponsible because it would provide the Defense Department with exemptions to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act that would allow the Defense Department to conduct military exercises in environmentally-sensitive areas such as wildlife refuges. Despite Progressives' concerns, the Hunter amendment was adopted by a 252-175 margin. (There was bipartisan agreement on the section of the amendment which would prevent Inspector General employees who are transferred to the United Nations from engaging in political activities.) ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and
Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act. Before the House can consider a measure on the floor, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) and usually limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amending activity on a measure. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill. Progressives opposed the rule because they objected to provisions in the bill which would: 1) allow Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld greater leeway in hiring, assigning, and giving pay raises to the nearly 700,000 civilian employees and; 2) exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and it passed by a 224-200 margin. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research
and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species
Act. House debate on the $400.5 billion Defense Authorization centered on two main issues. First, provisions in the bill would allow Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld increased leeway in hiring, assigning, and providing pay raises to the Pentagon's nearly 700,000 civilian employees. In the view of Progressives, Rumsfeld's grant of authority could politicize the agency responsible for military operations and be used to quell dissent among civilian Pentagon employees within the Pentagon. Second, the authorization would exempt the Defense Department from compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Progressives pointed out that current laws already allow case-bycase exemptions to the species protection acts; exempting the Defense Department altogether from those Acts, in their view, would further threaten those endangered species. On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question, thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment, on a rule to provide for House consideration of the defense authorization bill. Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted. Progressives opposed the motion to allow adoption of the rule because that rule disallowed any Democratic amendments-including an amendment drafted by Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) which would have protected the rights of civilian employees in the Pentagon-from being considered during House debate. On a straight party line vote, the motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 225-203 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Passage of a Bill to Provide Timber Companies With Increased Access to Federal Forestland. The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill to allow thinning projects on twenty million acres of federal forestland for the purpose of combating wildfires. Provisions in the bill would expedite judicial review of thinning projects and allow logging in insect-infested areas. In the view of Progressives, the main objective of the legislation was to provide timber companies with greater access to federal land for purposes of logging and they opposed final passage on those grounds. Provisions in the bill, they worried, could be interpreted broadly for purposes of increasing timber extraction on federal forestland. The forest thinning legislation was adopted on a vote of 256-170. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Timber Companies With Increased Access
to Federal Forestland. A motion to recommit a measure to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue is one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation considered in the House. If successful, the recommit motion is usually fatal to the measure. During debate on legislation to combat wildfires, Congressman Udall (D-NM) made a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee strike provisions that would speed up judicial review of court decisions that challenge wildfire prevention projects. In the view of Progressives, a process of judicial review for wildfire prevention projects provides an important safeguard against the pressures exerted by the timber industry to increase logging operations in forested areas. Progressives supported Udall's motion as a way to protect judicial decisions regarding wildfire prevention projects (those projects usually involve thinning forest areas through logging or burning dense areas in a controlled manner). The motion to recommit the legislation was defeated on a 176-250 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote on Democratic Substitute Measure Which Would Restrict the Total Acreage Available to
Timber Companies for Logging Activities. During House debate on legislation to combat wildfires, Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered a substitute measure on behalf of the Democratic party which would have allowed forest thinning projects within a one-half mile of at-risk communities or near municipal water supplies to be undertaken without environmental review. Progressives favored the Democratic plan because it restricted forest thinning projects to areas near population centers or water supplies, thereby limiting the total area of forestland subject to thinning projects (the GOP-plan, conversely, would apply to all woodlands that are deemed high-risk areas for wildfires). Progressives worried that the language contained in the GOP-bill could be used by the timber industry to justify new and more extensive logging operations in forested areas. The Democratic proposal was rejected by a 184-239 margin. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Timber Companies With Increased Access to
Federal Forestland. In 2002, more than 88,000 wildfires burned 6.9 million acres and cost the federal government $1.6 billion to suppress those fires. The policy response by the White House to limit wildfires was to accelerate the environmental and judicial reviews of wildfire prevention projects-which include forest thinning and controlled burning-on 20 million acres of woodlands near populated areas and water supplies. Progressives viewed the Bush proposal with skepticism; in their view, the main purpose of the policy was to give timber companies greater access to federal lands by granting forest thinning projects. Also of concern to Progressives was a provision in the bill which would allow the felling of trees to prevent insect infestation; they worried that the provision could be interpreted broadly and thereby expand logging operations in forested areas. The subject of this vote was the rule governing debate on the legislation. Prior to House consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted to set parameters for debate. Progressives opposed the rule because they were hesitant to grant timber companies additional access to forestland for purposes of "thinning". Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and it was adopted on a 234-179 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Forest and Paper Industry ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Forest and Paper Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
H.R. 1527. NTSB Reauthorization/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits
to Jobless Workers. During House debate on reauthorization legislation for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Congressman Cardin (D-MD) proposed an amendment which would have extended unemployment benefits by thirteen weeks for those workers who have exhausted their federal unemployment benefits. After unemployed workers exhaust their state unemployment benefits, federal benefits are provided for an additional thirteen weeks to provide jobless workers with additional time to find a new job. The stagnant economy in recent years, however, has made it difficult for the jobless to find work. As a result, the unemployment benefits for over 1.1 million jobless workers have expired and those individuals are currently left with few available means to make ends meet. Progressives supported Cardin's amendment as a way to provide financial assistance to unemployed workers whose benefits have expired. In their view of Progressives, the federal government has a responsibility to insure that unemployed workers are provided for during tough economic periods. During debate on Cardin's proposal, Congressman Mica (R-FL) raised a point of order against the measure on the grounds that Cardin's amendment was not relevant to the NTSB legislation under consideration (in the House, amendments to legislation must be deemed relevant to that legislation; points of order can be raised against irrelevant amendments). Progressives voted in opposition to the point of order based on their support for the Cardin amendment. On a 225-200 vote, however, the Cardin amendment was defeated. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
H.R. 1527. NTSB Reauthorization/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican
Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families. Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was a procedural motion which would allow for House consideration of a bill that would authorize $341 million through 2006 for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and its training academy. Lawmakers, however, were united in their support for the NTSB reauthorization. The straight party-line division on the vote reflected a controversy over a child tax credit provision contained in the $350 billion tax cut package which was recently signed into law by President Bush. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have prevented low-income families from benefiting from the child credit increase from $600 to $1000 which was contained in the tax package. In an effort to force Congress to rewrite the $350 billion tax cut package to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote to change the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the NTSB reauthorization and other noncontroversial measures to demonstrate opposition to the exemption contained in the GOP-tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from benefiting from the child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, tax breaks should be targeted to low and middle income families because those individuals are most in need of financial assistance. Despite unanimous opposition from Democrats, the procedural motion to allow debate on the NTSB reauthorization was adopted on a 220-205 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Passage of a Bill Intending to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts Which Failed to
Extend Those Rules to Corporate Executive Pension Plans. The subject of this vote was final passage of the Pension Protection Act; a GOP-drafted bill designed to improve safeguards on employee pension accounts. The bill would allow employees greater control over their retirement accounts, provide them with more information about their investments, and require employers to provide quarterly statements regarding employee pension plans. Though the bill represented a modest first step, Progressives argued that the measure did not go far enough to protect employee pensions. Specifically, they were concerned that allowing private money managers to provide employees with financial advise would create a conflict of interest because the managers might be tempted to recommend those investments that benefit them personally (money managers can receive benefits if they channel investments to certain companies). Progressives also sought to impose the same pension rules on executives that apply to non-executives; a move intended to disallow what they often view as overly generous pension packages to corporate executives. These two specific concerns that were raised by Progressives during debate on the employee pensions bill were not incorporated into the legislation. Despite opposition from Progressives, the pension protection legislation was adopted on a 271-157 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Intending to Safeguard Employee Pension
Accounts Which Failed to Extend Those Rules to Corporate Executive Pension Plans. In the House, one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation is the opportunity to make a motion to recommit. If successful, the recommit motion sends a measure back to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During House consideration of the Pension Protection Act, Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered the motion to recommit the GOP-drafted bill with instructions to provide additional investment protections to workers whose companies choose to convert from a defined benefit to a cash balance benefit plan. One provision in the instructions to recommit the bill would have allowed workers with at least ten years of service to the company to choose whether they wanted to switch to a cash balance plan. Whereas defined benefit plans describe an employee's benefit as a series of monthly payments for life after retirement, cash balance plans define the benefit in terms of an account balance. Moreover, unlike cash balance plans-which are often composed mainly of stocks that can fluctuate based on the stock market-defined benefit plans provide workers with financiallysecure savings; defined benefit plans are secure from market variability because the defined benefit is fixed over time. In the view of Progressives, workers should be allowed to choose between the two types of pension plans and supported the motion to recommit on those grounds. Progressives argued that defined benefit plans are preferable to cash balance plans because defined benefit plans provide a guaranteed income for retired workers even during periods of economic recession. Support for Miller's motion was nearly divided along party lines and was defeated on a 202-226 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Vote on Democratic Substitute Measure to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts and
Restrict Overly-Generous Corporate Executive Pension Plans. As American Airlines was firing workers and negotiating wage reductions with the airline unions, the company gave its recently-resigned CEO a pension worth an estimated $1 million per year. During House debate on a bill to protect employee pensions, Congressman Andrews (D-NJ) offered a substitute measure on behalf of the Democratic party which would have, among other things, imposed the same pension rules on executives that apply to non-executives and created an excise tax on so-called "golden parachute" packages to departing executives. Progressives supported the Democratic plan because, in their view, workers should not be forced to accept wage reductions if a company is able to shower their executives with valuable pension plans or severance packages. It is unfair, Progressives argue, for workers to be fired or have their pay reduced when corporate executives continue to receive large sums while the company is struggling. The Democratic plan was defeated on a 193-236 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Intending to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts
Which Failed to Extend Those Rules to Corporate Executive Pension Plans. After Enron's fraudulent corporate accounting practices were publicly exposed, employees of the company attempted to sell Enron stock in their 401(k) retirement plans before the stock bottomed out. The energy company, however, prevented its employees from selling their stock and, as a result, employees' retirement savings dissipated as Enron's stock plunged from $90 in October 2000 to $0.26 in December 2001. Enron's actions preventing its employees from selling their stock in the company fueled concerns regarding the safety of retirement plans and have inspired congressional reforms of corporate pension programs. In a move to rebuild confidence in corporate pension programs, House Republicans drafted a bill to provide employees with more control over their pension funds and greater information about their retirement investments. In the view of Progressives, however, the GOP-drafted bill was a half-hearted measure and failed to address major problems in the current system. Specifically, Progressives opposed provisions in the bill that would allow money managers hired to run a company's 401(k) plan to provide investment advice to workers because those managers might unduly profit by recommending investments for which they would earn fees. On this vote, Republicans attempted to move the previous question, thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment, on a rule to provide for House consideration of the pension protection measure. Before legislation can be debated in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted. Progressives voted against the motion because they were opposed to the key provisions mentioned above in the underlying legislation. On a straight party-line vote, the motion was adopted 218-201. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Passage of a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals
Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. The subject of this vote was final passage of a tax cut bill which would provided $550 billion in tax breaks over eleven years. Provisions in the bill would reduce the tax rate on dividends taxes, capital gains taxes, and income taxes. Businesses would be allowed to write off up to $100,000 in investments, and the child tax credit would be increased to $1000 for middle and upper income taxpayers. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for single filers through 2005, thereby eliminating the so-called marriage penalty in those years (because couples have a higher tax obligation than if they file their taxes separately, they are in essence penalized under the current tax code). Progressives opposed final passage of the bill because, in their estimation, the proposal disproportionately benefits highincome taxpayers and provides inadequate tax breaks for low and middle income individuals. Additionally, Progressives were concerned that the tax cut would significantly increase federal budget deficits in future years and would reduce the availability of funding for human needs such as public education, health care, and Social Security. On a nearly party-line vote, the tax cut was passed by a 222-203 margin. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. One of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation considered in the House is a motion to recommit. If successful, the recommit motion sends a measure back to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During debate on legislation to provide $550 billion in tax reductions over eleven years, Congressman Moore (D-KA) motioned to recommit the measure with instructions to delay the tax cuts until the federal budget is balanced. Progressives supported Moore's motion because, in their view, the tax cut legislation contains an excessive amount of tax breaks that benefit wealthy individuals-including provisions to eliminate dividends taxes and reduce the tax rate on income only in excess of $1,171,000-and comparatively few provisions that would benefit low and middle income taxpayers. Additionally, Progressives complained that the tax reductions would deprive the federal budget of funding that would be needed for public education, Social Security, and Medicare. Republicans voted unanimously against the motion to recommit and it was defeated on a nearly party-line vote of 202-218. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Effort to Recommit to Committee a Bill Containing $550 Billion in
Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in
Domestic Spending. A successful motion to recommit a measure to committee-which can only be exercised by a Congressman who opposes the legislation-is usually fatal to a piece of legislation. During debate in the House on a $550 billion tax cut proposal, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) offered a motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee with instructions to substitute language that would pare down the amount provided in tax cuts to $177 billion, include smaller tax breaks for individuals and businesses, and extend unemployment benefits and grants to states to help alleviate state budget shortfalls. Congressman Bill Thomas (R-CA) raised a point of order against the Rangel motion to recommit on the grounds that the motion was not relevant to the underlying legislation. House rules dictate that instructions contained in motions to recommit must be limited to subject areas contained in the legislation under consideration; because the underlying bill did not contain language to provide unemployment benefits and aid to states, Rangel's motion to recommit was subject to a point of order. Progressives voted against the point of order (and in favor of Rangel's motion) because, in their view, the Rangel proposal achieved a more equitable distribution of tax breaks than those contained in the GOP-drafted tax cut bill. The GOP bill, for instance, included provisions to eliminate the dividends tax (dividends are corporate payouts to shareholders) and reduce the marginal income tax rate only on income earned in excess of $1,171,000; both provisions disproportionately benefited wealthy individuals and would have been scaled down had Rangel's motion to recommit been successful. The point of order against the Rangel motion was sustained on a 222- 202 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. Prior to House consideration of a measure, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) and usually limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amending activity on a measure. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on legislation to provide $550 billion in tax reductions over eleven years. Among other things, the tax reductions would eliminate the dividends tax (dividends are corporate payouts to shareholders) and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate (which applies only to income in excess of $1,171,000). Progressives voted in opposition to the rule because, in their estimation, the GOP-drafted tax cuts were too heavily stacked toward wealthy individuals and provided an insufficient amount of financial assistance for low and middle income taxpayers. Democrats unanimously opposed the rule but it was adopted on a party line vote of 220-203. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. In a move intended to spur the anemic economy, the Bush Administration proposed and Congress enacted a $1.35 trillion tax cut package in 2001. In 2003, President Bush again pushed for tax reductions. The administration's 2003 tax cut proposal would eliminate the dividends tax (dividends are corporate payouts to shareholders) and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate (the highest rate applies only to income in excess of $1,171,000). The cost of the 2003 tax cut package to the U.S. Treasury was originally valued at $726 billion but was later pared down to $550 billion during negotiations between the House and Senate because a majority of Senators were unwilling to enact tax cuts in excess of $550 billion. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question, thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment, on a rule to provide for House consideration of the $550 billion tax cut measure. Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted. Progressives opposed the rule and voted against the motion to cut off debate because they considered the tax cut proposal as heavily favoring wealthy individuals at the expense of low and middle income taxpayers. Moreover, Progressives worried that the tax cuts would significantly increase federal budget deficits in future years and would potentially require drastic spending cuts in areas such as Medicare, Social Security, and education. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the motion to move the previous question but the motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 219-203. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Passage of a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job Training Programs and
Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions. The subject of this vote was passage of a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, an Act providing federal assistance for job training and education programs. The bill would also authorize $1.25 billion in 2004 for youth job training programs and provided additional resources for out-of-school youth. Language in the bill, which progressives opposed, would allow faith-based providers of job training activities to use religion as a factor in hiring decisions (see Roll Call Vote #170). Progressives viewed this language as a form of discrimination against individuals whose religious beliefs might differ from those of the faith-based organization where they might be employed and voted against the bill on those grounds. The legislation was adopted by a margin of 220-204. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job
Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in
Hiring Decisions. House rules allow the minority party to offer a motion to recommit legislation for further committee consideration which, if passed, is usually a death blow to the bill. Congressman Miller (D-CA) offered the recommit motion on the job training reauthorization bill with instructions that the House Education and Workforce Committee (the committee which developed the legislation) add an amendment which would have provided unemployed workers an additional 26 weeks of income support and extended the eligibility of workers who have exhausted their federal extended unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. Progressives supported the committee instructions contained in the recommit motion as a way to insure that unemployed workers are able to provide for their families during the period in which they are searching for a new job. The motion to recommit the bill with instructions was defeated on a 202-223 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job Training
Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring
Decisions. Before legislation is able to be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule (which is drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership) that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor. This vote involved a rule governing debate on a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act which provides federal assistance for job training programs. Progressives voted against the rule because the bill contained language that would allow faith-based providers of job training activities to consider an individual's religious beliefs in their hiring decisions. Progressives viewed this language as a form of discrimination against individuals who do not have the same religious beliefs as the faith-based organization where they might be employed. The rule was adopted by a 221-196 margin. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job
Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in
Hiring Decisions. One of President Bush's most controversial domestic policies has been the "faith-based initiative" which, among other things, would allow religious groups to receive federal grants and still maintain their religious nature. Though the faith based initiative has stalled in Congress, Republicans have attempted to weave language contained the initiative into other bills concerning social policy. The job training reauthorization bill, for instance, contained language that would allow faith-based providers of job training activities to use religion as a factor in hiring decisions. Progressives viewed this language as a form of discrimination against individuals who do not espouse the religious beliefs of the faith-based organization where they might be employed. More generally, progressives oppose efforts to provide federal assistance to faith-based groups because in their view such assistance violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on legislation to reauthorize spending for the Workforce Investment Act (a rule must be adopted prior to House consideration of legislation). The purpose of the Act was to provide federal assistance for job training programs, but the legislation also contained faith-based language that progressives found objectionable and they therefore voted against the motion. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 222-199 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
H.R. 766. Nanotechnology Research/Vote to Require Research into the Potential for Nanotechnology to Provide Clean
Sources of Energy. During debate on a bill to authorize additional spending in the field of nanotechnology-which the science of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular scale-Congressman Bell (D-TX) proposed an amendment that would have required research and development into the potential for nanotechnology to provide clean and inexpensive energy. Progressives voted in favor of the Bell measure because nanotechnology may provide new scientific advances into the production of clean energy sources and reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, a goal progressives support. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the amendment but the measure was defeated 207-217. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
H.R. 766. Nanotechnology Research/Vote to Undertake a Study Into the Potential Adverse Environmental Consequences
of Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology-the science of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular scale-could spur the next major technological revolution; nanotechnology potentially has applications in nearly every scientific field including medicine and energy (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter). Lawmakers overwhelmingly supported legislation to encourage scientific advances in the nanotechnology market and authorized $2.4 billion over three years for a federal program to support research, development, and education in the field of nanotechnology. Historically, however, the development of new technologies have brought unintended environmental consequences; examples include the development of nuclear power, DDT, and the gasoline additive MTBE. In an effort to prevent environmental degradation from nanotechnology, Congressman Bell (D-TX) offered an amendment to the legislation which would have required that toxicological and environmental impact studies be undertaken during the development of nanotechnlogy. Progressives favored the Bell amendment as a way to guard against any adverse environmental impacts of nanotechnology but the measure was rejected on a 209-214 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Nanotechnology's Effect on the Environment |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Require One-Third of AIDS Relief Funding Be Used for Abstinence Programs. During committee consideration of the AIDS relief bill, agreement was reached among lawmakers on an effective approach to combat the spread of AIDS. The plan developed in committee-known as the ABC strategy for abstinence, being faithful, and condom use-has proven effective in curbing the spread of AIDS in Uganda. Social conservatives and some religious groups, however, opposed to the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS; they view condoms as morally-objectionable in all circumstances. In an effort to restrict funding for condom distribution programs to prevent the spread of AIDS, Congressman Pitts (R-PA) proposed an amendment that would have mandated that onethird of the AIDS relief funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. Progressives opposed the Pitts amendment because condom distribution, which has been proven to be an effective tool against AIDS transmission, should in their view play an integral role in the policy approach adopted by Congress. The Pitts amendment, progressives argued, would tie the hands of those working to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pitts amendment was adopted on a 220-197 vote. FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Reduce Funding for Global AIDS Relief Efforts. During consideration of a bill to authorize fifteen billion over five years in funding for international AIDS relief, Congressman Smith (R-MI) proposed an amendment that would have reduced AIDS relief spending in 2004 from $3 billion to $2 billion. Progressives opposed the Smith measure because they regarded AIDS as needed immediately. Moreover, some lawmakers worried that adopting the Smith amendment would have upset the carefully-crafted compromises made in committee to secure passage of the bill on the House floor. The proposed reduction in AIDS relief was defeated by a 130-288 margin. FAMILY PLANNING— Availability of Contraceptives HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Restrict Funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, a Humanitarian Aid Group. In response to President Bush's call for AIDS relief in his State of the Union address, Congress drafted legislation to combat the AIDS pandemic by authorizing $15 billion over five years to treat and prevent AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. During House consideration of the measure, Congressman Stearns (R-FL) offered an amendment to restrict funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, a Geneva-based humanitarian aid group. Specifically, the measure would cap the salaries of Global Fund employees at $192,000. Progressives opposed the salary cap because Global Fund employees play a central role in gathering and directing funds for AIDS assistance worldwide. Moreover, progressives argued that the current salary levels are necessary to attract the most highly-qualified and competent individuals to combat AIDS. The Stearns amendment was adopted on a 276-145 vote. HEALTH CARE— Funds for Combating AIDS, International |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Passage of a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund the Individuals With
Disabilities in Education Act. The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)-which requires congressional reauthorization every five yearswas passed by Congress in 1975 to provide federal assistance to states for special-education programs. The original legislation specified that forty percent of states' costs in providing special education to disabled students would be paid for by the federal government. The current IDEA reauthorization, however, fails to provide the necessary $20.2 billion needed to fulfill the federal government's obligation to the states (it includes only $8.5 billion). Progressives opposed the IDEA reauthorization because it does not fully-fund IDEA at the level specified in 1975, a funding level which they believe to be necessary to insure that disabled students receive a quality education. Additionally, the IDEA reauthorization removes parental involvement in actions relating to the evaluation and education of their child and allows disabled children to be punished for behavior resulting from their disability; progressives also opposed these provisions in the IDEA reauthorization legislation. The reauthorization was adopted by the House on a 251-171 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Vote to Provide Disabled Students with Vouchers to Attend Private
Schools. The subject of this vote is very similar to the previous one (see Roll Call Vote #151). Instead of channeling federal money to states for disabled children to attend private schools as the unsuccessful DeMint (R-SC) amendment would have done, the Musgrave amendment would have allowed school districts to provide parents of disabled children in private schools with a certificate (or voucher) for the child's special education needs. Progressives opposed the Musgrave voucher program because the protections and rights granted to disabled students in the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) are limited to those attending public schools; disabled students who attend a private schools have no legal guarantees that they receive an adequate education. Progressives argued that taxpayer money should not be spent on private school vouchers without mechanisms in place to insure that private schools are accountable for the education they provide to disabled students. The Musgrave amendment was defeated on a 176-247 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Vote to Provide Public Tax-Dollars to Private Schools to Create Special
Education Programs for Disabled Students. During debate on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), Congressman DeMint (RSC) proposed an amendment that would have provided states with federal money to set up programs for children with disabilities to attend private schools. Progressives opposed the DeMint amendment because in their view, public schools, not private schools, should be the recipients of public taxpayers money. While public schools must hold open meetings and make their test scores, dropout rates, and other basic information public, private schools are not subject to similar oversight. Private schools, then, are not publicly accountable for providing disabled students a quality education and, in the view of progressives, should not receive public money. A majority opposed the DeMint amendment and the measure was defeated on a 182-240 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund the
Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act. In certain areas of domestic policy-such as welfare and education-Congress is required to reauthorize spending after a set period of time has elapsed. The reauthorization process allows Congress to make programmatic and funding changes to the laws governing certain domestic programs. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). A rule, which is drafted by the House Rules Committee, must be adopted prior to floor consideration of legislation. Progressives opposed the rule because it prevented floor consideration of an amendment they favored which would have required that IDEA be classified as a mandatory spending program (similar to Medicare and Social Security). Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending levels cannot be changed by the congressional appropriations committees; recipients of mandatory spending are therefore better protected against spending cuts. The rule governing floor debate was narrowly adopted by a vote of 211-195. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Passage of a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil Drilling in the Pristine
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The subject of this vote was final passage of energy legislation that would overhaul the nation's energy policies. Specifically, the bill would restructure the electricity-production system, allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and provide $18.7 billion in tax breaks for energy-producing companies. Progressives opposed final passage of the energy plan because of its emphasis on fossil fuel rather than renewable energy production. Moreover, the plan would allow oil-companies to drill in Alaska's ANWR, a pristine wildlife sanctuary, which had definite potential to cause environmental degradation as a result of the drilling operations. The energy plan was adopted on a 247-175 vote in favor of the legislation. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil
Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. House rules allow the minority party to offer a motion to recommit legislation for further committee consideration which, if passed, is usually a death blow to the bill; Congressman Dingell (D-MI) offered the recommit motion to the energy plan that would have instructed the committee reporting the legislation to strike a provision in the energy plan that would allow applicants for a license to build a hydroelectric facility alternative means of environmental protection. Progressives supported Dingell's instructions to recommit the energy bill as a way to insure that current laws protecting fish and wildlife are not circumvented by new proposals offered by applicants seeking to build a hydroelectric facility. More generally, progressives supported the recommit motion based on their objections to provisions in the bill that would allow oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They also favored investments in renewable energy sources which are not included in the energy bill. The motion to recommit was defeated on a 171-250 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Prevent Coal Producers From Seizing Unlimited Amounts of Federal Land. One-third of the nation's coal is owned by the federal government because it is on public lands (mostly in the Western States). Coal is made available to coal-producing companies under a competitive leasing program; taxpayers receive a return from the leases because companies are obligated to pay a percentage of the lease amount and royalties from coal production to the U.S. Treasury. A provision in the energy bill, however, would repeal a 160-acre limit on coal leases and thereby allow coal producers with federal leases to seize unlimited additional Federal coal lands without competitive bidding and be exempted from paying production royalties. During debate on the energy plan, Congressman Rahall (DWV) proposed an amendment to reinstate the 160-acre limit on coal leases. Progressives favored the Rahall amendment as a way to prevent private companies from purchasing public lands without adequately compensating the U.S. taxpayer. Rahall's amendment was narrowly defeated on a 208-212 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Coal Industry ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Coal Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Eliminate a Provision in Bill Providing a Federal Subsidy for Oil-Drilling on Public Lands. During debate on energy legislation, Congressman Kind (D-WI) offered an amendment to strike a section in the bill that would reduce the amount that oil-companies would pay the federal government in royalty payments for the right to drill on public lands. Progressives opposed the corporate subsidy for oil companies included in the energy bill--which is estimated to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars--because it would create economic incentives for additional oil-drilling on public land. Progressives argue that improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles and investing in renewable energy sources--and not more oil-drilling--are the key to a sound energy policy. The Kind amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated on a 171-251 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Oil & Gas Industry ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Passage of a Conference Report Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That
Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic
Spending. The purpose of the congressional budget process is to set an overall financial framework to guide the House and Senate in drafting the thirteen annual appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. After each chamber passed a budget resolution, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the legislation that emerged from the two chambers. The subject of this vote was the conference report on the budget resolution. Progressives opposed the conference report because it failed to provide what they viewed as adequate funding in areas such as education, health care, and Social Security. Additionally, the conference report would provide $550 billion in tax reductions benefiting wealth individuals. Progressives oppose tax reductions during poor economic conditions saying instead money should instead be spent to help those who lost their jobs regain their financial footing. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the conference report but the measure narrowly passed the House on by a 216-211 margin. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Conference Report Containing $550 Billion
in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts
in Domestic Spending. Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). Normally, if a rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee--which is the case for the rule considered in this vote--a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained. Republicans--eager to pass the conference report on the budget resolution--made a successful motion to circumvent this requirement (see Roll Call Vote #139). The subject of this vote was the rule governing debate on the conference report which, by language adopted in the previous vote, requires only a simple majority for passage. Progressives opposed the rule on the grounds that the budget resolution contains an excessive amount in tax reductions but fails to provide enough domestic spending for priorities such as education, Medicare, and Social Security. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and it was adopted on a 221-202 vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
H. Con. Res. 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Procedural Vote to Circumvent House Rules to Allow a Vote on the
Rules of Debate on a Conference Report Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals
Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. Before legislation is able to be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). If the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, however, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans--who were eager to pass the 2004 budget resolution conference report--offered a motion to waive the requirement which would allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as required under normal House practices (a conference report is the final version of a bill and is developed in a conference committee between House and Senate conferees who reconcile differences in legislation that passed the two chambers). Progressives objected to the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary manuevering because they did not have a chance to review the conference report on the budget resolution; it was reported out of committee only two hours before this vote. On a straight party-line vote, Republicans were able to pass the motion to waive the two-thirds requirement by a 223-203 margin. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Eliminate Funding for Environmentally-Damaging Methods of Uranium Extraction. The energy plan as currently written provides a $10 million subsidy over three years to promote an experimental technology in which uranium is mined from groundwater. Groundwater, however, is the only reliable source of water for tens of thousands of Navajo Indians who reside near uranium mines where the technology would be employed. Many Navajo men worked in uranium mines from the 1940's to the 1970's and already face alarming rates of cancer as a result; using groundwater to extract uranium may adversely affect Navajo Indians even further. During debate on the energy legislation, Congressman Udall (D-NM) proposed an amendment to eliminate funding for the uranium-extraction technology. Progressives supported Udall's effort to preserve the groundwater from contamination as a way to protect the health of Navajo Indians. Udall's amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated on a 193-231 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Nuclear Energy Industry ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Nuclear Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Nuclear Industry HEALTH CARE— Native American Health Care |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Create a Reserve Program to Minimize Fluctuations in Gasoline Prices. Like most products, gasoline prices are sensitive to the laws of supply and demand; reduced supplies and/or increased demand for a product cause an increase in its price. When an oil refinery catches fire or a gas pipeline bursts, gasoline prices tend to increase as a result of the reduction in supply. In an effort to minimize the effects of supply system glitches on American consumers, Congressman Brown (D-OH) offered an amendment to the energy legislation providing for a Gasoline Availability Stabilization Reserve program. Three reserves--each containing about 20 million barrels--would have been established to help regions of the country blunt the price effects of a refinery fire or a pipeline outage. Progressives supported Brown's amendment as a way to stabilize gasoline prices. Consumers, progressives argue, should not suffer unduly from price increases that result from a refinery fire or a pipeline outage. Republicans voted overwhelmingly in opposition to the Brown amendment and the measure was defeated by a 173-252 margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Prevent Oil-Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress drafted energy legislation for the purpose of increasing domestic energy production so as to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Included in the energy plan, however, are plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil-drilling operations; a policy which progressives strongly oppose (see Roll Call Vote #134). In an effort to prevent drilling operations from being undertaken, Congressman Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the energy legislation which would have prevented the Interior Department from granting oil and gas leases to oil companies wishing to drill for oil in ANWR. Progressives supported Markey's amendment as a way to protect one of the nation's most pristine wildlife refuges. The amendment failed to muster majority support in the chamber and was defeated by a vote of 197-228. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Allow, But Limit, Oil-Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The most controversial provision included in legislation outlining the nation's energy policy was oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Some have argued that drilling in ANWR is a necessary step to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil reserves. Progressives, however, opposed the ANWR drilling for two main reasons. First, the oil-drilling had definite potential to cause environmental degradation. Second, the stock of oil in the ANWR would not decrease foreign reliance; geologists estimate that the ANWR reserves could satisfy only a miniscule percent of the nation's energy demand. Improving the fuel efficiency in automobiles, progressives argue, is a better way to reduce oil-consumption in the U.S. In an effort to make oil-drilling in ANWR more palatable, Congresswoman Wilson (R-NM) proposed an amendment to the energy legislation which would have limited the surface area in ANWR that could be used for oil production to 2000 acres. Progressives voted in opposition to the amendment on the grounds that no drilling in ANWR should be allowed. The Wilson amendment was adopted on a 226-202 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Oil & Gas Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Expand the Authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to Combat Corporate
Fraud and Market Manipulation By Energy Producers. Outlining a national energy policy has been on the congressional agenda for several years. In 2001, energy legislation passed both chambers of Congress but was ultimately defeated in a conference committee between the House and Senate. Energy legislation that is similar to what was proposed in 2001 was again debated by each chamber of Congress. The main difference between the 2001 and 2003 policies considered in the House was the addition of a controversial section on electricity deregulation which would preserve state authority to regulate retail electricity systems. In the wake of Enron's collapse, electricity deregulation has become a controversial issue for lawmakers because evidence suggests that the former energy-giant illegally took advantage of deregulated energy-markets in 2001 by purchasing available energy stocks and then restricting the supply of electricity to drive up energy costs for consumers in Western states like California. In an effort reach a compromise on the issue, Congressman Dingell (D-MI) proposed an amendment that would have replaced the deregulation provision with language to expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) anti-fraud powers, require reports on sales and transmissions of electricity and gas, and authorize FERC to refund electricity overcharges retroactively. Progressives supported the Dingell amendment as a way to protect consumers against market manipulations by corporations such as Enron. Dingell's amendment was defeated by a 193-237 margin. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Spur the Development of More Fuel Efficient Automobiles. During debate on legislation outlining the nation's energy policy, Congressman Boehlert (R-NY) proposed an amendment that would have required the Department of Transportation to ensure that the total amount of gasoline consumed annually by cars and light trucks in the year 2010 will have been reduced by five percent relative to gasoline consumption in 2004. The purpose of Boehlert's amendment was to spur the development of more fuel efficient automobiles, a goal which progressives strongly endorse. The Boehlert amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated on a 162-268 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Automobile Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil
Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Before legislation is able to be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule (which is drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership) that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor. This vote pertains to a rule for debate on the energy plan which would set time limits for debate, limit the number of amendments considered, and specify a time for the final vote to be held. Progressives opposed the rule because they object to the energy plan as currently written. A sound energy policy, progressives argue, requires investment in renewable energy sources which the current proposal does not provide. Republicans voted unanimously for the rule and it was adopted by a 236-190 margin. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil
Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 2003, the House Energy Committee created legislation outlining a national energy plan. In many respects, the energy legislation recently proposed is similar to legislation drafted in 2001. The 2001 legislation was defeated in conference committee because the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on issues such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); similar challenges confronted the current energy plan. This vote involved a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on the energy plan (rules are resolutions drafted by the House Rules Committee-which function in effect as an arm of the majority party leadership-that govern the handling of a particular bill on the floor). As a general rule, lawmakers in the minority party who oppose a piece of legislation generally oppose the rule for debate (given the potential for punishment by the majority party leadership, majority party lawmakers seldom oppose either the motion to move the previous question or the rule). Progressives voiced opposition to key provisions in the energy plan which included: 1) allowing oil-drilling in ANWR; 2) the absence of investment in renewable energy sources; and 3) providing tax breaks for fossil-fuel energy producers. The motion to order the previous question was adopted on a nearly party-line vote of 226-202. ENVIRONMENT— Air Pollution ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Utility Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Passage of a Bill to Restrict the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence. This vote involves final passage in the House of a gun liability bill that would restrict liability lawsuits filed on behalf of victims of gun violence against gunmakers and dealers. Two exceptions to the lawsuit restrictions would allow certain lawsuits to be filed. Civil suits would be permitted against gunmakers or sellers who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in selling or marketing a weapon and against gun manufacturers who produce defective weapons. Progressives opposed final passage of the bill because it reduces the legal standing of victims of gun violence vis-à-vis gun manufacturers and dealers. The legislation was adopted on a 285-140 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Gun Violence CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Firearms Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence. Prior to the vote on final passage of gun liability legislation, Democrats offered a motion to recommit the bill to committee for further consideration with instruction to remove language in the bill that would make it immediately applicable to pending lawsuits against the gun industry. In general, a successful motion to recommit-which is always offered by the minority party-is usually a death blow to a piece of legislation. Progressives supported the recommit motion to forestall passage of a bill designed to legally empower the gun industry at the expense of victims of gun violence. The motion was defeated by a 140-282 margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Gun Violence CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Firearms Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Enhance the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence By Allowing Lawsuits Against
Gun Retailers Who Negligently Provide Guns to Known Criminals. Congressman Meehan (D-MA) offered an amendment to the gun liability bill that would allow the victims of gun violence to recover damages from the manufacturers or sellers of firearms if their negligence allows guns to fall into the hands of criminals. Progressives supported Meehan's amendment as a way to ensure that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are held responsible for their negligence just as every other industry and every other individual may be held responsible for any wrongdoing. Meehan's amendment failed to muster majority support and was defeated on a 144-280 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Gun Violence CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Firearms Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Enhance the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence By Allowing Lawsuits Against
Gun Retailers Who Negligently Provide Guns to Known Drug Addicts or Individuals Certified as "Mentally Defective". During debate on gun liability legislation, Congresswoman Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment that would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective". Progressives supported Sanchez's amendment on the grounds that guns should only be available to responsible and mentally-competent citizens. Gun dealers, progressives argue, should be responsible for conducting adequate background checks to insure that addicts and mentally-defective individuals are denied the sale of guns. The Sanchez amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated 134-289. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Gun Violence CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Firearms Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Enhance the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence By Allowing Lawsuits Against
Gun Retailers Who Knowingly Provide Guns to Individuals Intending to Commit a Crime. Lawsuits filed on behalf of victims of gun violence have been circulating though the court system for years. In an effort to set legal parameters on the firearms industry, Congress developed legislation to limit the liability of gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers from certain lawsuits. One provision in the legislation would prevent lawsuits against gun-sellers with clean criminal records even if the seller knowingly sold or transferred a firearm to someone planning to commit a crime. Congressman Scott (D-VA) offered an amendment to the bill that would have eliminated that provision. Had Scott's amendment passed, any gun-seller--even if they had no prior convictions--could be sued if they knowingly transferred a gun to someone plotting a crime. Progressives supported Scott's amendment as a way to strengthen the accountability of gun dealers and to insure that those dealers do not sell guns to individuals if the seller is aware that the buyer plans to use the weapon to commit a crime. Scott's amendment was defeated by a vote of 148-278. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Victims of Gun Violence CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Firearms Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Firearms Industry JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Gun Control JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
Procedural Motion/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Chastise Congresswoman Cubin (R-WY) For Her Racially-Charged
Remarks on the House Floor. During House debate on an amendment to gun-liability legislation that would bar the sale of guns to drug addicts, Congresswoman Cubin (R-WY) queried, "Well, so does that mean if you go into a black community, you can't sell any gun to any black person?" Cubin's remarks offended many of her colleagues and Congressman Watt (D-NC), a member of the congressional black caucus, asked to have Cubin's words "taken down" which, if Watt's motion was successful, would have prevented Cubin from speaking on the floor for the rest of the day. Congressman Sensenbrenner then offered a motion to table (or strike down) Watt's challenge; this vote pertains to the Sensenbrenner motion to strike down Watt's objection to Cubin's statement. Progressives supported Watt's effort to penalize Cubin for her racially-charged remarks. Republicans voted unanimously to table Watt's motion to have Cubin's words taken down and were successful on a vote of 227-195; Congresswoman Cubin was therefore not penalized for her racially-charged statement. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include More Generous Senate Language
Regarding Unemployment Benefits for Displaced Airline Workers During Conference Committee Negotiations with the
Senate. The airline industry has faced serious financial problems since the September 11th attacks-fewer travelers are flying and airlines have laid-off numerous aviation workers as a result. The Senate version of the war supplemental spending bill included a provision providing displaced airline workers an additional twenty-six weeks of temporary unemployment benefits; the House version included a similar though less generous provision. During House debate on the war supplemental bill, Congressman Obey made a motion to instruct House conferees to adopt the more generous Senate language regarding unemployment benefits for aviation workers in the final version of the legislation. House conferees are lawmakers chosen by their party's leadership to attend a conference committee with the Senate to iron out any differences in the legislation approved by each chamber. Progressives supported the Obey motion as a way to help unemployed airline workers-many of whom lost their jobs through no fault of their own-regain their financial footing and find new jobs. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Obey's motion and it passed on a 265-150 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Establish Civil Support Teams Though the National Guard to Guard Against the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. During debate on a $74.7 billion supplemental spending bill for costs associated with the Iraqi war, Representative DeFazio (D-OR) introduced an amendment which would have reduced economic assistance to Turkey by $207 million (from about $1 billion to $800 million) and redirected that money toward the establishment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) civil support teams to be managed by the National Guard. DeFazio pointed out that the civil support teams-which are intended to reduce the threat of a WMD detonation on U.S. soil-had already been authorized by Congress; the money, however, had yet to be provided in the form of a congressional appropriation. Progressives supported DeFazio's amendment because, in their view, safeguarding the public from WMD through civil support teams was a higher priority than providing economic aid to Turkey. Turkey, Progressives noted, had not even solicited the funds from the U.S.; surely, they argued, the Turkey aid package could be reduced from $1 billion to $800 million in order to augment U.S. protections against WMD. Despite support from Progressives, the DeFazio amendment was defeated 113-312. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Increase Funding for Domestic Security Activities and Reduce Funding
for Counter-Drug Missions in Colombia. During consideration of the war supplemental spending measure, Congressman McGovern (D-MA) offered an amendment that would have increased funding for the Office of Domestic Preparedness by $34 million and reduced spending for counter-drug activities in Colombia by $61 million. The mission of the Office of Domestic Preparedness is to improve the capacity of state and local first responders to handle terrorist acts involving weapons of mass destruction. In the wake of 9/11, the responsibilities of police, fire, and other first responders have increased; they must now meet their regular law enforcement and public safety duties while also being prepared to handle the possibility of responding to a terrorist attack. State governments across the country, however, are facing severe budget deficits and are unable to provide the necessary level of funding for first responders. Progressives supported the McGovern amendment as a way to improve public safety at home while reducing the amount spent on counter-drug activity in Colombia. Curtailing the drug trade, progressives argue, requires an effort to reduce the demand for drugs through treatment programs rather than military operations attacking the supply chain in foreign countries. Democrats voted overwhelmingly in support of the McGovern amendment but the measure failed to attract majority support in the chamber and was defeated 209-216. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— War on Drugs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security WAR & PEACE— Military Aid to Colombia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Increase Funding for Homeland
Security Purposes. Democrats in both chambers of Congress proposed amendments to the war supplemental spending bill to increase the level of funding for domestic security. The bulk of the money would have been directed to the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Justice and the FBI would have also received additional revenue. During House consideration, Congressman Obey (D-WI) offered an amendment that would have added $2.5 billion for homeland security purposes. A point of order was raised against the Obey amendment by Congressman Young (R-FL) that the measure was not "germane", or relevant, to the pending legislation (unlike the Senate, the House requires that amendments to legislation are relevant to the issue being debated). Progressives opposed the point of order because Obey's amendment would direct much-needed funding to the federal agencies responsible for protecting American citizens against terrorist attacks. On a party-line vote of 217-195, the point of order was sustained and the Obey amendment was defeated. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund the Initial Stages of the Iraqi
War and Limit Congressional Power in Determining the Specific Uses of Those Funds. The 2004 budget resolution, a financial blueprint for future federal spending, was adopted by the House on April 1, 2003. The budget resolution, however, did not appropriate federal money to pay the costs associated with the Iraqi war effort. To budget for the costs of war and to protect the home front against terrorism, the Bush Administration crafted a $74.7 billion supplemental spending bill which was sent to Capitol Hill for debate following passage of the budget resolution. The administration's proposal included $62.6 billion for defense-related expenditures; $59.9 billion of that total, however, would be spent at the discretion of the Pentagon, not Congress. The administration's "flexibility" in war-related spending was a contentious issue between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. As the constitutional entity responsible for directing federal spending, Congress pared down the $59.9 billion requested by the executive branch for discretionary purposes; amendments to the war supplemental bill sought to further clarify how the money would be spent. This vote involved a motion to move the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) and adopt a rule allowing for House consideration of a $77.9 billion war supplemental spending bill. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee governing the handling of a particular bill on the floor must be adopted. Progressives opposed the motion to move the previous question on the House bill because they objected to the $25.4 billion provided in flexible spending for the president-they wanted reductions in the discretionary fund to be more in line with the $11 billion provided in the Senate's version of the bill. Democrats unanimously opposed the procedural motion but were defeated on a party-line vote of 221-200 in support of the motion. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
H.R. 743. Social Security Fraud/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Retired
Public Employees in Texas and Georgia. In a final effort to defeat the Social Security Fraud bill, Congressman Green (D-TX) offered a motion to recommit the bill for further committee consideration with instructions to remove a requirement that retirees pay into the Social Security system for a minimum of five years before they are eligible to receive benefits. In general, a successful motion to recommit is usually a death blow to a piece of legislation. The most contentious provision in the bill would revoke Social Security benefits for retired public employees in Texas and Georgia. Some of those retirees become eligible to receive federal Social Security benefits when their spouse dies, even if they did not pay Social Security taxes while in the workforce (Texas and Georgia have their own state plans and do not require public employees to pay federal Social Security taxes). Progressives supported the effort to preserve Social Security benefits for retired public employees in Texas and Georgia-many of whom were teachers, firefighters, and police-because revoking the benefits might cause serious financial hardship for those retirees. Green's motion to recommit gained unanimous support from Democrats but a united front of Republicans were able to defeat the motion on a 203-220 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
H.R. 743. Social Security Fraud/Vote to Eliminate a Provision in Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Retired
Public Employees in Texas and Georgia. During consideration of the Social Security Fraud bill, Congressman Green (D-TX) offered an amendment that would have deleted language in the bill preventing public employees in Texas and Georgia from receiving federal Social Security benefits if their spouse dies (see Roll Call Vote #99). Progressives supported the Green measure to insure that retired public employees in those states would continue to receive the benefits they currently enjoy; revoking those benefits might in many cases cause serious financial hardship. The Green amendment failed to attract majority support and was defeated on a 196-228 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
H.R. 743. Social Security Fraud/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Retired
Public Employees in Texas and Georgia. Public employees in several states (including 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 may be eligible to receive their spouse's Social Security benefits. Republicans viewed this as fraudulent and proposed legislation 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. Progressives opposed this effort on the grounds that public employees--many of whom are teachers, firefighters, and police--deserve financial support. Moreover, many of those individuals who rely on the federal benefits would fall below the poverty line if they were revoked. This vote involved a motion to end debate on the issue and adopt a rule allowing for House floor consideration of the bill. Progressives opposed the rule to forestall a final vote but the motion was passed by a 245-177 margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
H.R. 1463. Smallpox Vaccination Compensation Fund/Passage of a Bill to Provide Compensation for a Limited Number
of Individuals Who Die From Smallpox Inoculations. Aid for first responders has become a popular cause for Democrats and Republicans eager to improve the nation's emergency and preparedness programs. After reports surfaced that three nurses providing smallpox inoculations for first responders contracted the illness, Congress initiated efforts to create a compensation fund for health and emergency workers who suffer adverse effects from smallpox. To date, only 30,000 health care volunteers have received the vaccination; this number is far fewer than the goal of 500,000 set by President Bush in December. In an effort to increase the number of inoculations, Congressman Tauzin (R-LA) introduced a bill that would have awarded a $262,000 lump-sum payment to survivors of individuals who die or are permanently disabled from smallpox inoculations. Progressives opposed the Tauzin bill on the grounds that it was too narrowly-defined; they sought to broaden the definition of "disabled" in the bill to include disfigurement and other potentially incapacitating consequences of contracting smallpox through the inoculation. The vote on the Tauzin bill was held under a suspension of the rules-a procedure usually reserved for non-controversial legislation-which requires the support from two-thirds of those present and voting (260 in this case). Proponents of the Tauzin bill failed to attract the necessary 260 votes and the measure was defeated 184-206. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Disabled MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
H. Res. 153. Day of Prayer/Passage of a Bill Expressing the Sense of the House that the President Should Designate a Day
of Prayer, Fasting, and Humility. This vote pertains to a motion offered by Congressman Shays (R-CT) to adopt a "sense of the House" resolution-a nonbinding resolution that lacks the force of law-urging President Bush to designate a day of prayer, fasting, and humility. The resolution would also encourage individuals to observe the designated day by seeking guidance from God to understand their failings and find resolve to confront the nation's challenges. Progressives objected to the Shay's resolution on the grounds that government has no business instructing its citizens on religious matters. The vote on the Shay's proposal was held under suspension of the rules-a procedure designated for non-controversial pieces of legislation which requires the support from two-thirds of those voting-and the measure passed overwhelmingly on a 349-49 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
H.R. 1104. Protections for Children/Vote to Impose Minimum Sentencing Guidelines and Thereby Reduce Judges'
Discretion in Cases Involving Child Pornography and Sexual Abuse. During House consideration of a bill to strengthen protections for children, Congressman Feeney (R-FL) proposed an amendment to limit the ability of the courts to depart from federal sentencing guidelines in cases involving child pornography and sexual abuse. Feeney's measure would also increase penalties for individuals who possess child pornography featuring violent conduct. Progressives opposed Feeney's effort because it would infringe on civil liberties and reduce the discretion of judges in assigning punishments for those convicted of crimes against children. The Feeney amendment was overwhelmingly supported and passed 357-58. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
H.R. 1104. Protections for Children/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Impose Minimum Sentencing Guidelines and
Thereby Reduce Judges' Discretion in Cases Involving Child Pornography and Sexual Abuse. Following the rescue of Elizabeth Smart, attention crystallized to improve the AMBER alert system (which stands for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response). Edward Smart, Elizabeth's father, advocated on national television for improving the AMBER alert system. AMBER alerts are bulletins that provide information regarding a recent kidnapping and are broadcast on local television, radio stations, and even on electronic highway signs. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate overwhelmingly support increasing state grants for the AMBER system. In drafting the AMBER legislation, however, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) packaged the proposal with several failed bills addressing other protections for children. Those failed bills included efforts to ban virtual (or computer-generated) child pornography, make crimes involving child abuse eligible for federal first-degree murder charges, impose minimum sentencing requirements for individuals convicted of abusing children, and authorize wire-tapping authority to investigate those suspected of child abuse. Progressives supported improvements to the AMBER system but objected to other provisions in the bill which would curtail civil liberties and limit the discretion of judges in punishing those convicted of crimes against children. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the Sensenbrenner bill but the measure was adopted on a 218-198 vote. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Passage of a Bill Containing $726 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit
Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending. The annual budget resolution is a blueprint for the coming year's taxing and spending. Though its outlines are fundamentally non-binding, there are procedural benefits to staying within the document's limits. The main feature of the Republican resolution for 2004 was the president's $726 billion tax cut, but it also made many earlier temporary tax cuts permanent, included cuts in spending outside of defense and homeland security, and set aside $400 billion for Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. Progressives--and Democrats generally--disliked passing a large tax cut in a time of war and disliked that the tax cut proposed was directed mainly at wealthy Americans. No Progressives supported the budget, only one Democrat voted for, and 12 Republicans voted against. This was almost enough to kill it, but it squeaked through on a 215-212 vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Which Eliminated Tax Cuts for
Wealthy Individuals and Increased Spending for Medicare and Prescription Drugs. The budget resolution is a document passed each year by both chambers of Congress that serves as a blueprint for the year's taxing and spending. Though the resolution is ultimately non-binding, there can be procedural advantages to staying within the document's bounds. The main feature of the Republican resolution for 2004 was the president's $726 billion tax cut, but it also included cuts in spending outside of defense and homeland security and $400 billion for Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. Democrats proposed an alternative budget that increased nondefense spending, eliminated the tax cuts for the wealthy, reduced the overall size of the cut to $136 billion, and allowed $528 billion (up from the Bush administration's $400 billion) for a prescription drug benefit. Progressives supported this plan because they saw it as an improvement over the Republican version. This Democratic substitute was rejected, 192-236. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on an Alternative Bill Which Eliminated Tax Cuts for Wealthy
Individuals, Provided Additional Tax Cuts for Low-Income Individuals, and Increased Spending for Health, Education,
and Public Housing. The federal budget process begins with the budget resolution, a blueprint for spending and revenue that is ultimately non-binding but does impose some constraints on the taxing and spending process for the coming year. The Republican resolution for 2004 included $726 billion in new tax cuts and cuts in spending outside of defense and homeland security. To Progressives, a tax cut as the nation headed to war was anathema, and the tax cut the Republicans proposed was too slanted toward the rich. They proposed an alternative budget that eliminated high-income tax cuts and increased tax cuts for the poor, increased funding in such areas as education, health and child care, and housing, and balanced the budget. This alternative plan was rejected, 85-340. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on an Alternative Bill Which Maintained Republican Spending Levels
But Would Cancel Any Tax Cuts for Wealthy Individuals if the Federal Budget was in Deficit. Usually the first step in the annual budget process is the budget resolution: a big-picture blueprint for spending and revenue that is fundamentally non-binding but can constrain the appropriations and tax bills passed that year. The main feature of the Republican resolution for 2004 was the president's $726 billion tax cut, but it also included spending cuts in most programs. Conservative Democrats proposed an alternative budget that stuck with the broad outlines of the president's plan but introduced some flexibility. It maintained the Republican spending levels but gave Congress more discretion about allocating the money, and it cancelled tax cuts for wealthy Americans if the war in Iraq kept the budget in deficit. Though in many ways it did not go as far as Progressives would have liked, they voted for this substitute because in their minds it was better than the original. Even so, it was rejected 174-254. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Passage of a Bill to Change Bankruptcy Laws to Reduce Protections for Individual in Debt. Republicans had long claimed that the nation's bankruptcy laws made it too easy hide assets from creditors. They wanted more bankruptcy filers to use Chapter 13, which opened these assets to confiscation by creditors, instead of Chapter 7, which provided more protection. The bill proposed by Republicans would require debtors to file under Chapter 13 if they were able to pay either $10,000 or 25 percent of their debts. The bill would also limit the home equity exemption to $125,000 for any home purchased within three years and four months of the filing. Progressives opposed these changes as too hard on those already struggling to make ends meet, and they viewed the whole bill as a bonanza to banks and credit card companies. They voted "no," but the bill passed by a large margin 315-113. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Change Bankruptcy Laws to Reduce Protections
for Individual in Debt. Republicans had been trying off and on to change the bankruptcy law since taking back the House in 1995. They felt the laws made it too easy for bankruptcy filers to hide assets under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. They proposed a bill that would move those with more ability to pay into filing under Chapter 13, which opened more assets to confiscation by creditors. Progressives felt the criteria for "ability to pay" were too hard on those who were already struggling to make ends meet, and that the whole bill was a gift to the credit card industry. Progressives had attempted to provide additional protections for alimony and child support payments as part of a larger substitute version of the bill, but that substitute had been voted down. In a second attempt, Jackson-Lee (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that only the provisions for alimony and child support be added to the bill. Progressives voted "yes," but the motion was rejected, 150-276. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Which Would Maintain Bankruptcy Protections
for Individuals in Debt. Republicans were eager to make major changes to the bankruptcy law, which they felt made it too easy for debtors to file for bankruptcy without major repercussions. They proposed a bill that would force bankruptcy filers with more assets to file under Chapter 13, which provides those assets with less protection from creditors. Progressives felt this change benefited credit card companies alone, and that these companies should stop encouraging consumers to go into debt and start assessing credit risks more carefully. Nadler (D-NY) proposed a substitute version of the bill that would soften the means test and protect forms of income such as health insurance, child support, and alimony payments. The substitute also made it more difficult for abortion protesters to use bankruptcy as a way to avoid fines for their actions. Progressives supported the substitute as a less draconian reform, but it was voted down 128-296, with numerous Democrats crossing party lines. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies HOUSING— Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Vote to Require Bankrupt Corporations to File for Bankruptcy Protection in the District
Court with Jurisdiction Over the Corporation's Principle Place of Business.
Republicans had tried for several years to pass an overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws. They felt the laws made it too easy for debtors to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, which protects many assets from confiscation. They proposed a bill with a means test that required those with more assets to file under the less protective Chapter 13. Progressives, on the other hand, felt that bankruptcy reform mainly benefited credit card companies, and that these companies should become better at assessing credit risk and not encourage individuals to go deeply into debt. As part of the debate on this bill, Sherman (D-CA) proposed an amendment that would require a corporation filing for bankruptcy to do so in the district court with jurisdiction over the corporation's principal place of business. Progressives supported this amendment to prevent "venue shopping," where corporations file in the court most friendly to their claims and make it difficult for those they did business with in their community to attend court hearings. But the amendment was rejected, 155-269. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Passage of a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting Damages in Medical
Malpractice Lawsuits.
Since retaking the House in 1995, Republicans had been interested in imposing caps on medical malpractice claims. They felt these claims had become so large that they were driving physicians out of the profession and increasing the cost of medical care for everyone. They proposed a bill that would cap pain and suffering damages at $250,000 and punitive damages at the greater of $250,000 or double the economic damages. The bill also capped attorneys' fees and limited the circumstances when punitive damages would be allowed. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed that something needed to be done about malpractice awards, but they argued the current bill would restrict patient rights while doing nothing to ensure that physicians (and so the system as a whole) would see savings on their malpractice insurance bills. However, with almost all Republicans supportive of the bill, Progressives and Democrats in general had very little say in the matter. The bill passed, 229-196. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting
Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.
In the years since taking over the House in 1995, Republicans had proposed capping medical malpractice claims seven times. They felt the size of these awards was driving doctors out of the profession and raising the cost of health care for everyone. The eighth version of the bill capped pain and suffering awards at $250,000 and capped punitive damages at either $250,000 or twice the economic damages, whichever was greater. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed that some restrictions on awards were necessary, but they felt the Republican caps restricted patient rights without any means to ensure that the savings would be passed to physicians in the form of lower malpractice premiums. The rules for debate on this bill forbade any amendments to it. However, Conyers (D-MI) moved instead to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that two provisions be added: an independent advisory commission, and a requirement that plaintiff attorneys in medical malpractice cases file a certificate of merit. Progressives opposed the bill itself, so they supported this attempt to scuttle it. However, the motion to recommit failed, 191-234, and the bill moved closer to final passage. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting Damages
in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.
Republicans had long complained that the growing size of medical malpractice awards was making the health care system more expensive for everyone and driving many doctors from the profession. They proposed a bill to cap these awards: at $250,000 for pain and suffering damages, and at either twice the economic damages or $250,000--whichever was greater--for punitive damages. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed that some restrictions on awards were necessary, but they felt the Republican approach limited patient rights without requiring that malpractice insurance companies would pass any savings on to physicians. They were also angry at the way Republicans handled the bill. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must be passed separately from and before debate begins on the bill itself. The rule Republicans proposed for the malpractice bill forbade any amendments, and 29 of the 31 pending amendments had been drafted by Democrats. Progressives opposed the malpractice bill itself, so they opposed this restrictive rule as well. They voted "no," but the rule passed, 225-201. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting
Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.
Since taking over the House in 1995, Republicans had made seven attempts to pass caps on medical malpractice awards from juries. They argued that the growing size of jury awards was increasing the cost of medical care for everyone and driving good doctors out of medicine. This latest bill capped pain and suffering damages at $250,000, and capped punitive damages at either twice the economic damages or $250,000, whichever was greater. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed something needed to be done about the size of awards, but they disliked this particular approach. They argued it restricted patient rights without any promise that physicians would see lower malpractice insurance premiums. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must be passed separately from the bill itself. Those opposed to a bill--in this case, Progressives and Democrats generally--often obstruct the rule as a means to kill the bill itself, since a bill will die if its rule does not pass. The vote at issue here was on a Republican motion to order the previous question: a way to end debate on the passage of a rule and move to voting on the rule itself. Because Progressives opposed the Republican malpractice bill and opposed its rule, they opposed ending debate on the rule and moving the process forward. They voted "no" on the motion, but it passed 225-201, with only one Democrat crossing party lines. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
HR 743. Social Security Fraud/Passage of a Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Certain Retired Public Employees.
Under law at the time of this vote, public employees serving in jobs not covered by Social Security received reduced spousal benefits upon retirement. Many such employees had recently switched to a job covered by Social Security just before retirement--sometimes as late as one day before retirement--in order to avoid this penalty. The Republican leadership in the House considered this an act of fraud, but Progressives considered the rule imposing reduced spousal benefits to be unfair. When this bill to close the job-switching loophole was proposed, Progressives voted against it. The bill was proposed under suspension of the rules, which limits debate and forbids amendments, but which also requires a two-thirds majority for passage. Supporters of the bill could not muster that two-thirds vote, and the Progressive position prevailed on a vote of 249-180, 37 "yes" votes short of the required number. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
HR 534. Human Cloning Ban/Passage of a Bill to Ban Human Cloning and Potentially Life-Saving Research on Human
Embryos.
The development of cloning technology raised new political questions that divided old alliances. Despite concerns about cloning for reproduction, the more immediate question concerned scientific research. Moderate Republicans, most Democrats, and Progressives favored the procedure as a way to produce stem cells for research that might one day cure a wide range of life-threatening illnesses, while most Republicans, as well as Democrats who see embryos as human life, opposed the very same research as murder because it involved the destruction of the cloned embryos. A ban on all human cloning--for whatever purpose--was proposed in the House, with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million for violators. The bill would also ban imported embryo clones and any products made from them. Progressives opposed the ban, but it passed, 241-155. HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
HR 534. Human Cloning Ban/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Ban Human Cloning and Potentially Life-Saving
Research on Human Embryos.
The debate over the cloning of human embryos defied normal partisan divisions. Progressives, most Democrats, and moderate Republicans focused on the procedure's potential benefits for stem cell research, which in turn held promise of treating or curing a wide range of life-threatening diseases. Most Republicans, as well as Democrats who see embryos as human life, opposed the procedure because it involved creating and often destroying what they considered human life. The ban on human cloning proposed in the House also banned imports of products developed from cloning. Lofgren (D-CA) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions to exempt products related to curing a variety of diseases--including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, and heart disease--provided none of these products could be used to start a pregnancy. Progressives supported this motion, because they supported the scientific applications of human embryo cloning. However, the motion was voted down, 164-237. HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
HR 534. Human Cloning Ban/Vote on a Substitute Measure to Ban Human Cloning But Allow Potentially Life-Saving
Research on Human Embryos.
This vote concerned a proposed ban on the cloning of human embryos. Divisions over the issue crossed party lines. On one side were most Democrats--including Progressives--and moderate Republicans, who saw the procedure in scientific terms. They focused on the procedure's potential to provide stem cells, which many scientists felt could be used to treat a wide range of life-threatening diseases. On the other side were most Republicans and Democrats who see embryos as human life. They focused on the destruction of the cloned embryo and the potential for humans to "play god." A bill to ban all human cloning was proposed, and Greenwood (RPA) responded by proposing a substitute that made what he felt was a critical distinction: the alternate ban forbade only cloning for the sake of reproduction, while allowing it for scientific research. Progressives supported this as an important clarification of the pro-cloning position. However, the substitute fell on a 174-231 vote. HEALTH CARE— Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
H J Res 2. Fiscal 2003 Appropriations/Final Passage of Government Spending Measure Which, With Few Exceptions,
Contained Across-the-Board Funding Cuts in Domestic Programs.
In the fall of 2002, Congress had been unable to agree on a spending plan for 2003. Republicans sought to cut spending and Democrats to increase it. However, the 2002 elections expanded the Republican majority in the House and put the Senate back in Republican hands. As a result, Republicans moved quickly in 2003 to pass a spending plan. The plan they proposed cut 0.65 percent from all programs but a handful (mostly related to education) in the bill. It provided $10 billion for intelligence and military activities; it also increased drought relief by $3.1 billion, election reform by $1.5 billion, and Medicare payments to physicians by $54 billion. Progressives supported many of these measures, but disagreed fundamentally with the amounts and with how closely the bill hewed to the Bush administration's low spending request. Progressives voted "no," but it was a lonely stand: the bill passed 338-83. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
H J Res 2. Fiscal 2003 Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Government Spending Measure Which, With
Few Exceptions, Contained Across-the-Board Funding Cuts in Domestic Programs.
Throughout the fall of 2002, Democrats and Republicans struggled to agree on a spending plan for 2003, but never succeeded. Republicans approached the project with renewed vigor after expanding their majority in the House and winning back the Senate in the November 2002 elections. But in addition to cutting spending across most categories, the spending bill they proposed also included a number of "riders": provisions unrelated to the spending bill at hand that members would attach in the hopes they would be passed on the momentum of the larger bill. Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the spending bill to the committee that drafted it with instructions that several riders related to the environment be removed, including one that would open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil leasing studies. Obey's motion also would require additional funding for conservation resource programs and $500 million for state and local "first responders" to emergencies. Progressives supported these ideas as favorable to the environment and homeland security, but their votes were not enough to carry the day. The motion fell, 193-226. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Passage of a Bill to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program Which Included New
Restrictions on Welfare Eligibility.
One of the most significant pieces of legislation of the Clinton presidency was, ironically enough, a centerpiece of the Republican agenda--welfare reform. The 1996 bill imposed time limits on benefits and work requirements for those who received them. The bill's authorization had expired by 2003, and Republicans saw the reauthorization process as a chance to tighten the law's restrictions. States under the original law had been required to have 50 percent of their welfare recipients at work; the new version raised it to 70 percent. The original law had required recipients to work at least 30 hours per week; the new law raised that number to 40 hours per week. The new welfare bill also added $1 billion to child care and $200 million (to be matched by $100 million from the states) for marriage promotion programs. Progressives felt the more onerous requirements were unnecessary and likely to be difficult to meet in a slow economy, so they opposed the new bill. They voted "no," but the bill still passed, 230-192. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program Which
Included New Restrictions on Welfare Eligibility.
Republicans had pushed welfare reform in 1996 that imposed time limits on benefits and various requirements on recipients. By 2003, the original bill needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans seized the opportunity to tighten its restrictions. The bill they offered changed many provisions of the original law-especially work requirements-but Progressives and most Democrats were particularly concerned that the bill did not provide enough money for child care. Cardin (D-MD) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to the committee that wrote it, with instructions that more child care funding be added. Despite the support of all Progressives and all but one Democrat, the motion failed, 197-221. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on a Second Democratic Substitute Measure to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare
Program, Liberalize Eligibility Requirements, and Increase Funding for Child Care Services.
By 2003, the 1996 welfare reform law needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans were using this as an opportunity to tighten the restrictions of the original bill. The 1996 law imposed a two-year limit on welfare support, mandated that states have at least 50 percent of their recipients working, and required those recipients to work at least 30 hours per week. Republicans wanted to increase the state requirement to 70 percent and the recipient requirement to 40 hours per week, among other changes. Progressives-and Democrats generally-resisted these increases. Cardin (D-MD) proposed a substitute to the Republican plan that would maintain the existing 30-hour-per-week requirement, but would stipulate that 24 of those had to be in certain core activities. Cardin's version would also make it easier for states to provide job training and education to recipients, would extend benefits to legal immigrants, and would increase child care funding by $11 billion over five years. Progressives saw this as a sensible alternative to the Republican plan, and voted for it. Even so, the substitute bill was defeated, 197- 225. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program,
Liberalize Eligibility Requirements, and Increase Funding for Child Care Services.
The 1996 welfare reform law transformed the original welfare program by imposing a number of restrictions on welfare recipients. By 2003 the law needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans sought to tighten the restrictions. Their version raised the work requirement for welfare recipients from 30 hrs to 40 hrs per week, and it required states to get 70 percent of their recipients into a job, up from 50 percent in the 1996 bill. Kucinich (D-OH) proposed a substitute that preserved the original law's requirements on both counts, increased child care funding, and extended benefits to legal immigrants, among other liberalizing changes. Progressives supported this effort to ease what they viewed as a draconian law. With Progressives voting "yes" on this substitute, it went down to defeat, 124-300. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
H J Res 18. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government
Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Increase Medicare Reimbursement Rates at Rural
Hospitals.
Congress arrived at the November 2002 elections without a spending plan for 2003. Conflicts within each body and split control--Republicans held the House and Democrats the Senate--proved too difficult to overcome. In place of such a final plan, Congress passed a series of stopgap "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that funded the government at 2002 levels. But after the elections gave Republicans control of both chambers and widened their margin in the House, a final spending plan looked likely. Even so, the Republican leadership needed to rely on CRs to keep the government funded while they put together this final spending package. Progressives and Democrats in general struggled to add what they felt to be needed funding to these CRs. In the vote at hand here, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the latest CR to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to add language to maintain physician payment rates under Medicare at 2002 levels and to raise base payments to rural hospitals to match those of urban ones. Progressives supported the motion because they worried that the CR would underfund health programs and they saw Obey's motion as a way to correct that problem. However, the motion was rejected, 195-215, with two Republicans and no Democrats crossing party lines. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Funding for Rural Hospitals HEALTH CARE— Medicare & Medicaid Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
H J Res 2. Fiscal 2003 Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Highest Possible Funding Levels for
Veterans' Medical Care, Homeland Security, Education, and Health Programs During Conference Committee
Negotiations with the Senate.
With Republicans controlling the House and Democrats the Senate in the fall of 2002, agreement on a spending plan for 2003 proved impossible. Congress passed a series of stopgap spending measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) instead. However, the outcome of the 2002 electionswhich widened the Republicans' margin in the House and gave them control of the Senate-encouraged the Republican leadership to move aggressively toward a new spending package. Progressives--and Democrats generally--were concerned that this final spending package would short-change domestic programs, including homeland security. As House and Senate negotiators worked out differences between the two bodies' versions of the spending plan, Obey (D-WI) moved to instruct the negotiators from the House to agree to the highest levels of funding for veterans' medical care, for homeland security, and for education, labor, and health programs in general. Progressives supported this motion to instruct, but it was defeated 200-209 on an almost perfect party-line vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
H J Res 13. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government
Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Increase Funding for Homeland Security.
Republicans and Democrats had been unable to agree on a spending plan for 2003 by the time of the fall 2002 elections. The result of those elections--greater Republican control of both houses of Congress--strengthened the Republican hand and permitted them to move forward aggressively with their own version of a spending bill. Nonetheless, they needed to pass a few stopgap spending measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) to keep the government funded at 2002 levels until they could put the 2003 package together. Throughout this process, Democrats pressed to add funding to these CRs. In the vote at issue here, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the CR to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that extra money be added for "first responders"-fire fighters, police officers, and others who arrive first to emergencies-who provide assistance during homeland security emergencies and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's efforts to screen the World Trade Center emergency personnel for long-term health problems. Progressives supported this motion to recommit, because they felt the CR funding for these elements of homeland security was inadequate. Even with their votes, however, the supporters of extra funding came up short: Obey's motion was defeated, 201-222. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
H J Res 13. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to
Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Increase Funding for Homeland
Security.
In the fall of 2002, Republicans and Democrats were unable to agree on a spending plan for 2003, so instead they passed a series of stopgap spending measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) that kept the government operating at 2002 levels. Republicans moved forward aggressively with their spending plan after increasing their margin in the House and taking back the Senate in the 2002 elections. Nonetheless, they still needed to pass some CRs to keep the government running. Democrats sought to add money to these CRs, to ensure the government would have enough funds to cope with homeland security needs. On the CR at issue here, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that extra money for emergency response efforts be added. The chair in charge of floor debate struck down the motion on the grounds that it violated House rules because it amounted to a new budget authority. Obey appealed the ruling, but Putnam (R-FL) moved to table (kill) this appeal. Progressives supported Obey's attempt to add funding for homeland security, so they opposed the ruling of the chair, supported Obey's attempt to appeal it, and opposed Putnam's motion to table. Despite their opposition and the opposition of all but one Democrat, the motion to table passed 222-196. Obey's appeal was killed and his motion to recommit for more spending was killed with it. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
HR Res 1. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government
Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Enact More Stringent Guidelines for Private Companies
that are Publicly-Chosen to Provide Elements of Homeland Security.
In the fall of 2002, Republicans and Democrats had been unable to agree on the government's spending bill for 2003. Republicans wanted to cut many programs, while Democrats wanted to fund them more generously. The result was stalemate, and a series of stopgap measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) that funded the government at the previous year's level. The Republicans increased their margin in the House and took back the Senate after the fall 2002 elections, but their strategy still involved two more CRs. Obey (D-WI) saw the first of these as an opportunity to correct some policy decisions from the previous year that Progressives and many Democrats had disliked. He moved to recommit the CR to a special committee with instructions to make changes related to Homeland Security. The first change would forbid the Homeland Security Department from contracting with companies that incorporated overseas to avoid taxes, and the second would suspend liability protections in the CR for vaccine makers. Progressives supported both measures as a way of preventing corporate irresponsibility, so they favored Obey's motion. Even so, the motion fell 192-220, with only a single member of the House voting across party lines. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
H J Res 1, H J Res 2. Continuing Resolutions/Vote Table (Kill) an Effort to Recommit to Committee Two Continuing
Resolutions to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Add Funding for
Homeland Security Protections and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The end of 2002 was marked by conflict over spending for 2003, with Republicans wanting to cut spending and Progressives--and Democrats generally--wanting to increase it. No agreement was reached, and Congress instead passed a series of stopgap measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) to keep the government funded at the previous year's levels. Republicans increased their margin in the House and took back the Senate in the 2002 elections. Nevertheless, their strategy called for two more CRs. The first, and most immediately important, of these included a number of cuts that Progressives disliked. As a result, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit the bill to a special committee, with instructions to add funding for the Securities and Exchange Commissionwhich regulates business corporations and Wall Street-and homeland security. The chair of the floor debate ruled that this motion was an inappropriate allocation of budget authority under the Budget Act of 1974. Frank (D-MA) appealed this ruling, but Gutknecht (R-MN) countered with a motion to table (kill) this appeal. Progressives supported higher spending, so they supported Obey's motion, opposed the ruling of the chair, supported Frank's appeal of that ruling, and opposed Gutknecht's motion to table the appeal. Support for Gutknecht's motion was high among Republicans, however, and the motion passed, 217-192, on an almost perfect party-line vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
H J Res 1, H J Res 2. Continuing Resolutions/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Continuing Resolutions to Extend
Government Funding at Previous Year's Level.
Throughout the fall of 2002, Republicans and Democrats battled over how the government's money would be spent in 2003. Republicans wanted large spending cuts, while Progressives--and Democrats generally--wanted higher spending. Unable to agree, they passed a series of stopgap measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) to keep the government funded at the previous year's levels. After the Republicans increased their margin in the House and took back the Senate in the November 2002 elections, their strategy for final passage of the spending bill still required two more CRs. In the House, bills come with a set of rules for the conduct of debate that must be voted on separately. A common strategy is to try to kill a bill by blocking its corresponding rule. This vote was on the rule for the two CRs. Linder (R-GA) moved to return to the previous question, a way of halting debate and moving the rule to final passage. A "yes" vote on the motion was a vote for the rule, and so for the CRs themselves. Progressives knew that passage of the CRs would allow Republicans to push spending bills that underfunded a wide range of programs they saw as important. As a result, they opposed the CRs, opposed the rule, and opposed the motion to order the previous question. However, the motion passed, 255-198, and the rule later passed on a voice (unrecorded) vote. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
S 23. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Recommit to Committee With Instructions to Extend Unemployment Benefits
From Thirteen Weeks to Twenty-Six Weeks.
At the start of the 108th Congress, Republicans moved quickly to extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits had run out. Their bill extended the benefits for 13 weeks; Progressives--and Democrats generally--supported the idea of an extension, but wanted to increase it to 26 weeks. McDermott (D-WA) introduced a motion to recommit, or send back, the bill to its committee, with instructions that the extra 13 weeks of benefits be added to the bill. Progressives supported this motion, but it went down to defeat, 202-224. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
S 23. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration and Adopt Rules of Debate on a Republican-Drafted Bill to
Extend Unemployment Benefits for a Limited, Thirteen Week Duration.
One of the first orders of business in the 108th Congress (2003-2004) was a bill to extend unemployment benefits for workers whose benefits had run out. The bill added 13 weeks to the standard 26 weeks of coverage. Progressives supported the extension in principle, but they felt it did not go far enough. They supported adding still another 13 weeks for a total of 26. In the House, every bill must have a rule attached to it that specifies how debate will proceed. It is common to use the vote on the rule as a way to obstruct a bill itself, for if the rule does not pass, the bill cannot pass either. Progressives-and Democrats generallytried to stop the limited version of unemployment by holding up its rule, but Republicans brought this motion for the previous question to move matters ahead. The motion called for an end to debate about the rule and a vote on its passage, so a vote for the motion was a vote for the rule and for the unemployment bill itself. Because Progressives opposed the limited version of the bill, they voted "no" on this motion. However, the motion passed, 224-196, and the rule was ultimately adopted on a voice (unrecorded) vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
H Res 5. House Rules/Vote to Adopt New House Rules Designed to Empower Republican Leaders and Committee
Chairmen in the Policy Process.
The House is not a "continuing" body, which means that it must vote after each election on the rules that will govern its behavior until the next election. At the start of the 108th Congress (2003-2004), Republicans took this opportunity to change the rules in their favor. They removed an eightyear term limit for the Speaker of the House and gave committee chairs the power to delay committee votes on bills. The first empowered the Speaker, while the second empowered the chairs of the committees by allowing them to wait on a bill until support was ensured. The new rules also removed some restrictions on lobbyists that the Republicans themselves had put in place in 1995, and required "dynamic scoring" for tax bills. Dynamic scoring shrinks the apparent effect of a tax cut on the deficit by assuming that the tax cut will also boost the economy. Progressives disliked all of these changes because they worked to shut Democrats out of the policy process and to slant that process in favor of conservative supply-side ideas. They voted against it, but passed on a perfect partyline vote, 221-203. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Lobbyists MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
H Res 5. House Rules/Vote to Recommit to a Special Committee New House Rules Designed to Empower Republican
Leaders and Committee Chairmen in the Policy Process With Committee Instructions to Remove Provisions Designed to
Benefit Republicans.
After every election, the House of Representatives must vote on the rules that will govern its behavior during the coming Congress. For the 108th Congress, this package included several changes that strengthened the Republican majority's power and tilted outcomes in favor of conservative principles. Two changes in particular were at issue in the vote here. The first allowed committee chairs to delay their committees' vote on a bill, giving them the power to hold the bill until circumstances on the committee or in the House at large appeared more advantageous for the bill's passage. The second was a requirement that tax bills use "dynamic scoring" to calculate the effects of tax changes on the deficit. Under dynamic scoring, assumptions about the positive effects of a tax cut on the economy are worked into predictions of the deficit. This makes a tax cut's effect on government revenue and the deficit seem smaller. To Progressives, the first change helped shut them out of decision-making, and the second made large Republican tax cuts seem less damaging to the deficit than they were. They supported a motion by Slaughter (D-NY) to commit the rules package to a special committee of the majority and minority leader, with instructions that these two provisions be eliminated. Progressives voted "yes," but the motion was defeated on an almost perfect party-line vote, 200- 225 (one Republican voted with the Democrats). FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
H.R. 333. Bankruptcy Overhaul/Vote to Pass Bankruptcy Reform Measure Without Compromise Language on Abortion-
Related Provision.
In a carefully crafted compromise, the conference committee on bankruptcy reform legislation included language in the conference report that would prevent individuals convicted of committing crimes against abortion clinics or doctors from filing for bankruptcy to cancel their debts. In a previous House vote (Roll Call Vote #478), however, the conference report was defeated because pro-life Republicans (who opposed the abortion-related provision) joined Democrats in voting against the conference report. In a final effort to pass bankruptcy reform legislation, Congressman Gekas (R-PA) resubmitted the conference report without the contentious abortion-related provision. By striking that provision, however, the Gekas bill nullified the compromise crafted by the conference committee and therefore stood little chance of passing the Senate and becoming law. Gekas, however, did not intend for the legislation to pass Congress; rather, his proposal was a demonstration of support for a credit card industry that has lobbied Congress for years to enact bankruptcy reform legislation. The Gekas proposal was adopted by the House on a 244-116 vote. However, because the Gekas bill torpedoed the House-Senate compromise codified in the bankruptcy reform conference report, the bill did not pass the Senate because Senate passage hinged on retaining the abortion-related provision which was not included in the Gekas bill. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
H.R. 5708. PAYGO Reduction/Vote to Recommit Bill to Committee As A Way to Hold Republicans Responsible for
Revenue Losses Caused by Tax Cuts.
The 1990 Budget Enforcement Act requires financial offsets for tax cuts or spending increases (both of which drain revenue from the U.S. Treasury). The budget rules-which are known as pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO-trigger automatic spending cuts to offset revenue losses from previously enacted legislation unless congressional appropriators (those lawmakers who serve on the appropriations committee) waive the PAYGO requirement. In 2002, however, appropriators failed to waive the PAYGO rules which required GOP leaders to demand roll call votes to insure that automatic spending cuts were not triggered. During debate on a bill to waive the PAYGO requirement, Congressman Moore (D-KS) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions that revenue losses caused by GOP-enacted tax cuts for wealthy individuals are offset by spending cuts in 2002 and 2003. Progressives supported the motion to recommit-which is one of the few procedural rights afforded to opponents of legislation-as a way to guard against future budget deficits and insure that the GOP is held responsible for revenue losses to the Treasury. The motion to recommit was defeated on a nearly party-line vote of 187-201. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
H.R. 5063. Welfare and Unemployment Benefits/Vote on Rules of Debate to Limit Extension of Welfare and
Unemployment Benefits to Current, But Not New, Jobless Workers.
Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule must be adopted to govern debate on the matter. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which acts as a functionary of the majority party leadership. The topic of this vote was a rule governing debate on legislation which would extend welfare benefits through March 31, 2003 and federal unemployment benefits through January 2003. Progressives opposed the rule because, in their view, the underlying legislation failed to provide adequate government assistance for the jobless and the poor. Progressives raised concerns that the bill would only extend unemployment benefits for current recipients and not those whose sixteen-week unemployment benefits have expired. In the view of Progressives, the jobless workers whose unemployment benefits have expired also deserved federal assistance. The rule governing debate was adopted on a 245-137 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
H.R. 5063. Welfare and Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Limit Extension of Welfare and
Unemployment Benefits to Current, But Not New, Jobless Workers.
On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on a bill which would extend welfare benefits through March 31, 2003 and allow current recipients of federal unemployment benefits to receive those benefits through January 2003. In the view of Progressives, the underlying legislation provided insufficient government assistance for the jobless and the poor. Progressives pointed out that the bill would only extend unemployment benefits for those workers currently receiving them. In the view of Progressives, the jobless workers whose sixteen-week unemployment benefits have expired also deserved federal assistance. The motion to move the previous question was adopted by a 207-198 vote margin and the bill was therefore allowed to move forward in the legislative process. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
H.R. 333. Bankruptcy Overhaul/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Increase the Difficulty of Filing for Bankruptcy.
Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule must be passed to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on the bankruptcy reform conference report (a conference report, which is drafted by conference committees for the purpose of reconciling differences between House and Senate-passed bills, is the final version of legislation). Bankruptcy reforms intending to make it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy and absolve their debts have been on the congressional agenda since 1999; the legislation, however, has thus far been unable to pass the House and Senate and obtain a presidential signature. In 2002, debate centered on a controversial provision which would have prevented abortion protesters from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines. In recent years, a few anti-abortion activists have torched abortion clinics and murdered doctors who perform the medical procedure; Progressives argued that those individuals should be penalized to the full extent of the law. In the view of Progressives, bankruptcy laws should not enable individuals who have been convicted of damaging abortion clinics or killing doctors from filing for bankruptcy to avoid the financial punishments for their actions. In a rare defeat for the GOP leadership, the rule governing debate on the bankruptcy reform conference report was rejected 172-243. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Banks/Credit Card Companies |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
H.R. 5710. Homeland Security Department/Final Passage of an Anti-Labor, Executive Power-Enhancing Bill to Create a
Department of Homeland Security.
The subject of this vote was final passage of legislation that would consolidate twenty-two agencies into a new cabinetlevel Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The mission of the new Department was to protect domestic security. Agencies that were relocated to the new Department were the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service among others. Proposals to create a Department of Homeland Security were originally made by Democrats shortly after the September 11th attacks; President Bush rejected Democrats' initial proposals but later crafted one of his own. Progressives opposed the Bush plan because provisions in the bill would change personnel rules to make it easier for the administration to fire civil servants in the DHS. Another area of contention involved the role of labor unions in the new Department. Under the Bush plan, civil servants in the DHS could be exempt from collective bargaining agreements. In the view of Progressives, the new DHS should not infringe on the labor rights of its employees. More generally, Progressives were concerned that the executive branch would gain more power vis-à-vis Congress in homeland security affairs because the legislation creating the new Department contained restrictions on congressional oversight of DHS actions. Despite Progressives' opposition, the legislation to create the new Department was adopted on a 299-121 vote. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
HR 5710. Homeland Security Department/Vote to Recommit to Committee an Anti-Labor, Executive Power-Enhancing
Bill to Create a Department of Homeland Security.
The Bush administration responded to the terrorist attacks on September 11th by proposing a dramatic restructuring of the federal government to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But with some suggestions that administration missteps had facilitated the terrorist attacks, Progressives and Democrats in general wanted to establish an investigation into the matter. Roemer (D-IN) moved to recommit (send back) the bill that created the new department to its committee with instructions that a National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States be added. The commission would look into security lapses before September 11th, among other matters. House Republicans were anxious to save the administration from such scrutiny, just as Progressives wanted to turn up the heat. On an almost perfect party-line vote, the motion to add the commission to the bill failed, 203-215. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
HR 5710. Homeland Security Department/Vote on Rules of Debate on an Anti-Labor, Executive Power-Enhancing Bill to
Create a Department of Homeland Security.
The bill to create a Department of Homeland Security out of a wide range of existing government agencies included an extraordinary grant of power to the president: the ability to wave union protections for employees of the new department. This provision of the new law was anathema to Progressives. They felt unions provided critical protections for public employees and saw no need to undermine them in the name of national security. Because Progressives opposed the bill itself, they also opposed the bill's "rule": the set of instructions for debate on the bill. If the rule is voted down, the bill is effectively rejected. However, Progressive opposition to the rule for the Homeland Security bill was not enough to kill it. The rule passed 237-177. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
H J Res 124. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Final Passage of Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels
Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Throughout 2002, Democrats and Republicans had argued about how much the government should spend in the next fiscal year. Republicans stayed close to the Bush administration's totals, which were generally designed to restrain spending as much as possible. Progressives and Democrats in general believed that the need for stronger homeland security and the weakening of the economy required a more aggressive approach to spending. To postpone the debate until circumstances were more favorable for them, Republicans in the House proposed a number of temporary "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that funded the government at the previous year's levels. The CR at issue here funded the government until the new Congress convened in January, at which time the Republicans, as a result of the November 2002 elections, would assume control of the Senate and have a much better chance of enacting their spending goals into law. Progressives opposed this CR because they wanted to force Republicans to compromise, but they did not have the votes to prevail. The CR passed, 270-143. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
H J Res 124. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Fund Government at Previous
Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
The Bush administration was determined to keep government spending low, even in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Republicans in the House followed that lead, and refused to compromise with the Democrats in control of the Senate on overall spending levels. Instead, they proposed a series of stopgap spending measures-"continuing resolutions," or "CRs"-that kept the government funded at fiscal 2002 levels on a temporary basis. The Republicans had taken back the Senate in the November 2002 elections but they would not take formal control of the body until January, so this latest CR kept the government funded until then. Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) this CR to its committee to add spending for veterans' health care, anti-bioterrorism programs, emergency preparedness, and oversight of corporate malfeasance. Progressives favored Obey's motion because they felt these programs needed extra funding. But enough Republicans stood by the administration to make a Progressive victory impossible. The motion failed, 196-216. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Veterans GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General HEALTH CARE— Veterans and Active Military Personnel MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
H J Res 124, HR 5708. Continuing Appropriations for 2003-Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Fund Government at
Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Republicans and Democrats had been unable to come to an agreement about spending for 2003. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress were determined to stick to a low spending number that Progressives and Democrats in general could not accept. To circumvent this disagreement and avoid any compromise, House Republicans proposed a temporary spending bill ("continuing resolution," or CR) to fund the government at the previous year's levels. In the House, most bills come with a set of instructions for the conduct of debate, normally referred to as the "rule." If the rule does not pass, the bill is effectively rejected. Progressives opposed the Republicans' CR because they wanted to force the Republicans to compromise on their lower spending goals. As a result, Progressives also opposed the bill's rule. However, their opposition was not enough and the rule passed, 215-189. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Final Passage of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels
Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Republicans and Democrats fought throughout 2002 over government spending for 2003. Republicans wanted to stick with strict spending limits suggested by the Bush administration. Progressives and Democrats in general felt the weakening economy and the need for greater homeland security meant it was better to err on the side of providing too much funding. Rather than pursue compromise on the issue, Republicans in the House proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that kept the government funded at the previous year's levels for short stretches of time. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. The CR at issue here lasted one month, and so gave Republicans cover from the issue until after the November elections. Progressives and Democrats in general wanted to force Republicans into compromising on spending, so they had no desire to postpone the matter until after the elections. They voted "no" on this stopgap spending measure, but it passed 228-172. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Fund Government at Previous
Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
The Republicans in control of the House and the Democrats in control of the Senate were unable to agree on spending for fiscal 2003. Republicans had committed themselves to White House spending restrictions that Progressives and Democrats in general felt were inadequate given the weakening economy and the need for stronger homeland security. To skirt around the impasse, House Republicans proposed a series of stopgap measures-"continuing resolutions" or "CRs"-to keep the government funded at the previous year's levels for short periods of time. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. The CR at issue here maintained funding for about a month-enough time to postpone the issue until after the elections in November. Progressives wanted to force Republicans to compromise now, so they wanted to press the issue as often as possible. They favored an Obey (D-WI) motion to recommit (send back) the CR to its committee with instructions that its duration be reduced to five days. However, Republican opposition to this idea was strong, and motion was rejected 194-210. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Fund Government at Previous
Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Throughout 2002, the Republican House and the Democratic Senate could not agree on government spending for the coming fiscal year. Republicans wanted to stay close to the Bush administration's lower spending totals, while Progressives and Democrats in general felt that the softening economy and the need for greater homeland security measures meant it was no time to worry about funding the government too generously. With no progress in reaching a compromise between the House and Senate, House Republicans proposed a series of temporary stopgap spending measures that would keep the government funded at the previous year's levels. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. Progressives opposed these "continuing resolutions" (CRs) because they wanted to force House Republicans to compromise on their spending limits. That meant Progressives also opposed each CRs "rule": the set of instructions for the conduct of debate that must be passed separately before the bill itself could be considered. The CR at issue here was no exception. Progressives voted "no" on its rule, but the rule passed with strong Republican support 206-193. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous
Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
With the economy weakening and homeland security becoming a top priority, Progressives felt it was important to provide adequate funding for a wide range of government programs. But throughout 2002, they and Democrats in general fought with Republicans over spending levels. Republicans followed the lead of the White House and insisted on low spending totals. The gridlock that followed left the government without money for the coming year. House Republicans proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that temporarily kept the government funded at the previous year's levels. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. Like most bills in the House, the CR at issue here came with a "rule" that dictated the conduct of debate; the rule had to be passed in order for the CR to be considered, so most opponents of the bill voted against the rule as well. This is why Progressives voted against the rule: they did not want to see the issue voted on because they believed the underlying CR gave Republicans a way to avoid compromise on the real spending bills. They also voted "no" on a Hastings (R-WA) motion to order the previous question-a way of cutting of debate on the rule and calling it up for a vote-because they opposed the bill and opposed the rule that would be voted on if the motion passed. However, the motion for the previous question received the necessary majority support 209- 193. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
H.R. 2155. Drunk Driving at U.S. Borders/Senate Passage of a Bill to Allow INS to Arrest Drunk Drivers Which Lacked
Protections for Motorists Against Racial Profiling.
The House adopted legislation on October 16 to allow agents of the Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to arrest drunk drivers intending to cross into the United States. Progressives voiced concerns that the bill included no safeguards against racial profiling and voted in opposition to the measure on those grounds. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) drafted an amendment to the bill which would have required the INS to keep records on motorists detained for drunk driving as a way to guard against racial profiling; GOP leaders, however, opposed the Jackson-Lee amendment and prevented the measure from being debated on the House floor. The legislation allowing the INS to arrest drunk drivers was adopted on a 296-94 vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
H J Res 122. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Final Passage of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels
Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Throughout 2002, Congress was unable to pass spending bills for 2003 because the Republican House and the Democratic Senate could not agree on the amount that should be spent. House Republicans wanted strict controls on spending that had been advocated by the Bush administration. Progressives and Democrats in general felt these spending levels were unrealistically low and deprived the government of money for needed social programs and homeland security. To keep the government running without compromising on the larger issues, House Republicans proposed this resolution, which funded the government at fiscal 2002 levels for eight days. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. Progressives opposed the resolution because they wanted Republicans to compromise on the spending issue and do so before the elections. They voted "no," but the measure passed, 272-144. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
H J Res 122. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Fund Government at Previous
Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Throughout 2002, Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House had been unable to agree on spending bills to fund most of the federal government. Progressives and Democrats in general felt the spending levels proposed by the Republicans were far too low, especially given the fragile state of the economy and the threat of future terrorist attacks. Without a compromise, Republicans in the House proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs)-temporary measures to keep the government running at the previous year's spending levels. Republicans used the CRs to avoid compromise until at least the November elections. They hoped to take back the Senate in those elections, after which their spending plan would have much better chance of passage. Progressives, on the other hand, wanted to force Republicans to confront the CRs as often as possible as a way to highlight the impasse and hopefully peel off some Republican votes. Toward that end, Obey moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the length of the CR be shortened from its current eight days to two. Progressives voted for this motion, but with united Republican opposition they did not have the votes to prevail. The motion was rejected 202-214. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
H J Res 122. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Fund Government at Previous
Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
The Bush administration and its allies in Congress were determined to keep government spending low, even in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the softening economy. By contrast, Progressives and Democrats in general felt the terrorist attacks and the state of the economy only proved that more funding was necessary for a wide range of programs. The result was an impasse: the Democratic Senate and the Republican House could not agree on spending bills. Instead of compromising on the issue, House Republicans proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that funded the government at the previous year's levels for short periods of time-the CR at issue here lasted only eight days. The Republicans' goal was to make it past the November elections; if they could took back the Senate in those elections, their spending plan would have much better chance of passage. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a "rule": a set of instructions that dictate the conduct of debate for that bill only. Opponents of a bill will often oppose the rule as well because if the rule fails, the bill usually dies. Progressives opposed the Republicans' CR, so they opposed the CR's rule. But Republicans in the House were united on the matter, and that made it difficult to bring the rule down. It passed 225-193. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Final Passage of Bill to Allow an Unprovoked U.S. Attack
Against Iraq.
The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill that would provide the president with congressional authorization to conduct unilateral military operations in Iraq. In the view of Progressives, the congressional grant of authority to the president would weaken the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war, isolate the U.S. from the international community if the military campaign were conducted unilaterally, and establish a dangerous precedent of preemption which would allow the U.S. and other countries as well to unilaterally determine whether another country constitutes enough of a threat to merit an invasion. The use-of-force resolution passed the House on a 296-133 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Allow an
Unprovoked U.S. Attack Against Iraq.
In the House, opponents of legislation are provided the right to vote on recommitting the bill to committee with instructions to change the measure. During House debate on a use-of-force resolution which would grant congressional approval for the president to initiate a war in Iraq, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that would have required the president-prior to any military operations-to submit to Congress an estimate of the impact of the war on the U.S. economy, Iraqi citizens, and international stability. In the view of Progressives, the use of force should be the option of last resort and they supported the Kucinich motion as a way to insure that the costs of the war were adequately considered prior to military action. The motion to recommit the use-of-force resolution to committee was defeated on a 101-325 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Vote to Require Congressional Compliance Prior to
Military Action in Iraq.
During debate on a bill that would grant congressional approval for President Bush to launch a military campaign against Iraq, Congressman Spratt (D-SC) proposed an amendment which would have compelled the U.S. military to support any new United Nations Security Council resolution ordering the elimination of Iraq's weapons program. The amendment would have also required the president to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Iraq if a United Nations resolution which authorized force was not obtained. Progressives supported Spratt's measure as a way to insure that Congress has the final word in declaring war (the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war). Moreover, Progressives argued that U.S. military action without U.N. support would undermine U.S. support in the international arena and serve to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world. The Spratt amendment was rejected by a 155- 270 vote margin. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Vote to Impel President to Work Through U.N. to Disarm
Iraq.
Since Congress returned in early September from its summer recess, the Bush Administration had been focused on passing a use-of-force authorization which would allow the President to undertake unilateral military action against Iraq. Progressives opposed the use-of-force resolution because, in their view, military actions against Iraq should be undertaken with strong international support (such was the case in 1991 when the United Nations backed the U.S.-led Iraqi invasion). Moreover, Progressives worried that establishing a doctrine of preemption-in which the U.S. could attack any country determined by the president to be threatening-would undermine international law and serve to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world. Moreover, Progressives worried that the doctrine of preemption could be used by other countries to justify unilateral military actions. The consolidation of presidential power was also a concern to Progressives. Progressives pointed out that the U.S. Constitution specifies that Congress, and not the President, is the sole entity responsible for declaring war. During debate on the use-of-force resolution, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) proposed an amendment which would have urged President Bush to work through the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction. Progressives supported Lee's proposal as a way to insure international cooperation in a potential conflict with Iraq. The Lee amendment was defeated on a 72-355 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Respect for International Law & the United Nations WAR & PEACE— War with Iraq |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Complete Its Work on Funding the Nation's Transportation Infrastructure.
Several House-passed bills were not considered by the Senate in 2002. In an effort to chastise the Senate for its inaction on those matters, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should adopt those House-passed bills and allow President Bush to sign those measures into law (in contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). To counter the GOP's "blamegame" legislative strategy, House Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to admonish the House for its inaction on Senate-passed legislation. One such resolution offered by Congressman Carson (D-IN) would have expressed the sense of the House that Congress should complete its work on the 2003 Transportation Department spending bill and include at least $1.2 billion for Amtrak. Progressives supported the Carson measure as a way to insure that funding for the nation's transportation infrastructure is not compromised by end-of-session delays in passing the spending bill. The subject of this vote was a motion by Congressman Rogers (R-MI) to table (or strike down) the Carson resolution. Progressives voted against the tabling motion but the Carson measure was struck down on a straight party-line vote of 203- 192. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors ENVIRONMENT— Rail Transportation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
Sense of the House Resolution /Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Repeal Funding Cuts to Hospitals that Serve Low-Income Patients.
In 2002, the Senate failed to act on several House-passed bills. In an effort to castigate the Senate for its inaction, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should adopt those House-passed bills to allow President Bush to sign those measures into law (in contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). To counter the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, House Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to admonish the House for its inaction on Senatepassed legislation. On this vote, Congressman Hulshof (R-MO) made a motion to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution proposed by Congressman Farr (D-CA). The Farr resolution would have urged Congress to repeal spending cuts for hospitals that serve low-income patients. In the view of Progressives, federal funding for hospitals should not be conditional on patient incomes. Hospitals in low income areas, Progressives argued, should receive comparable funding to hospitals that serve wealthy individuals. In other words, proper medical care should be available to all citizens regardless of their income. The motion to strike down the Farr resolution was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 206-192. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HEALTH CARE— Funding for Rural Hospitals |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
H.J. Res. 112. Fiscal 2003 Continuing Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund Government at
Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.
Every year, Congress must enact thirteen appropriations bill in order to fund government agencies and programs. If agreement cannot be reached among lawmakers on funding levels for the upcoming fiscal year (which begins on October 1st of each calendar year), a continuing resolution (or CR) must be adopted to extend appropriations from the prior fiscal year into the future (under a CR, federal departments and programs are funded at the previous year's level). If agreement cannot be reached on a CR, the government is shut down; this situation occurred in 1995 when congressional Republicans and President Clinton could not reach agreement on the appropriations bills. In late-2002, the legislative calendar was jammed with resolutions to authorize the use of force in Iraq and provide additional funding for homeland security; as a result, only five of the thirteen appropriations bills for 2003 funding had passed the House as of October 3, 2002. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a continuing resolution which would extend funding for government agencies and programs until October 11, 2002 that were due to expire under a previously adopted CR. During House debate, Progressives raised concerns with the approach of continuously adopting CR's to keep the government functioning because current spending needs (i.e. 2003 and not 2002) are not reflected in the resolutions (those resolutions are based on 2002 funding levels). Moreover, Progressives argued that continuously debating and adopting CR's on a week-to-week basis would hinder Congress's ability to deal with important legislative items such as the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. The motion to move the previous question was passed on a 206-198 vote and the continuing resolution was subsequently adopted by an overwhelming 404-7 vote margin. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Complete Its Work on the 2003 Labor, Health, and Human Services (Labor/HHS) Spending Bill.
In an effort to castigate the Senate for failing to act on several House-passed bills, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should adopt those House-passed bills and thereby allow the measures to be signed into law by President Bush (in contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). To counter the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, House Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to chastise the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. On this vote, Congressman LaHood (R-IL) motioned to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution drafted by Congressman Obey (D-WI). The Obey resolution would have expressed the sense of the House that Congress should complete its work on the 2003 Labor, Health, and Human Services (Labor/HHS) spending bill. Progressives supported the Obey resolution because, in their view, adopting the Labor/HHS spending bill was of vital importance for insuring adequate government funding for a broad range of human needs. LaHood's motion to strike down the Obey resolution passed on a straight party line vote of 212-202. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Extend the Farm Bankruptcy Program to Include Family Fishermen.
For legislation to pass Congress, a bill must be adopted by the House and Senate in an identical form. Frequently, however, legislation is passed by one legislative body but not the other; in those cases, the measure is defeated for that congressional session. In an effort to chastise the Senate for its inaction on several House-passed bills, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should act on those House-passed bills. In contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. To counter the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to admonish the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. On this vote, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) motioned to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution proposed by Congressman Holden (D-PA). The Holden resolution would have urged the House to extend a farm bankruptcy program to include bankruptcy protections for family fishermen. Progressives supported the Holden resolution because, in their view, fishermen should be offered the same bankruptcy protections that small farmers currently enjoy; success in both fishing and farming, they argued, depends heavily upon seasonal weather conditions and other unforeseeable factors that farmers and fisherman cannot control. The motion to strike down the Holden resolution was passed on a 214-202 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 434 |
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Speed the Approval Process of Generic (Less Expensive) Drugs.
Frequently, legislation is passed by one legislative body but not the other; in those cases, the measure is defeated for that congressional session. Towards the end of the 2002 congressional session, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should act on several House-passed bills. In contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. In response to the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own which in turn admonished the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. On this vote, Congressman Burr (R-NC) motioned to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution proposed by Congressman Brown (D-OH). The Brown resolution would have urged the House to adopt legislation to speed the approval process of generic drugs. Progressives opposed the tabling motion based on their support for Brown's resolution. In the view of Progressives, generic drugs should be available to consumers as quickly as possible as a way to defray the often enormous costs of brand-name prescription drugs. The motion to strike down the Brown resolution was adopted by a 212-204 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Fully-Fund Education as Required By Law.
Before legislation can pass Congress, the measure must be adopted by the House and the Senate in identical forms. Frequently, bills are passed by one legislative body but not the other; in those cases, the legislation is defeated. In an effort to admonish the Senate for its failure to act on several House-passed measures, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that the Senate should act on those issues. In contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. In response to the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own which would castigate the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. The subject of this vote was a motion by Congressman Miller (R-FL) to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution drafted by Congressman Visclosky (D-IN). Visclosky's resolution would have urged the House to provide funding on par with Senate levels for the implementation of education overhaul legislation enacted in 2001 (the House provided less funding for that bill than did the Senate). Progressives opposed Miller's motion to table the Visclosky resolution because, in their view, the House provided insufficient funding for states to implement the 2001 education legislation. The motion to strike down the Visclosky's measure was adopted on a 210-200 vote. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
H. Res. 543. Sense of the House Resolution/Passage of Resolution Expressing the Sense of the House That Republican
Tax Relief Bill for Married Couples Should Be Adopted.
In the tax code, married couples receive a smaller deduction than they would had they filed taxes separately. Legislation was considered in the House and Senate which would have provided joint filers with twice the deductible that single filers receive, thereby correcting the so-called "marriage penalty" in the tax code. Differences between the House and Senate bills, however, were unable to be resolved before Congress adjourned for the congressional session. The subject of this vote was a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the House" that Congress should pass legislation to permanently extend tax breaks for married couples contained in the 1.35 trillion tax cut measure adopted in 2001 (the tax breaks in the 2001 bill would expire in 2010). In the view of Progressives, the non-binding resolution was a GOP-effort to blame the Senate for failing enact the House-passed marriage penalty tax relief bill ("sense of the House" resolutions do not have the force of law). In the view of Progressives, the Senate bill was a more responsible approach for two reasons. First, the Senate version would apply marriage penalty relief to all married couples (in contrast, the House-passed measure would not extend the marriage tax breaks to low-income married couples). Second, the Senate bill did not make the tax breaks permanent. During the current period of rising federal budget deficits, Progressives felt as though the government was not in a financial position to provide permanent tax cuts. Moreover, Progressives worried that the GOP-drafted marriage breaks would threaten other programs like Social Security. Based on their objections to the House-passed marriage tax break bill and the GOP's political posturing on the issue, Progressives voted in opposition to the sense of the House resolution. Despite objections from Progressives, however, the resolution was adopted by a 285-130 margin. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
H.R. 2357. Churches and Campaign Activities/Passage of Bill to Erode Separation of Church and State By Allowing
Religious Groups to Conduct Campaign Activities and Still Retain Their Tax Exempt Status.
Non-profit organizations that do not engage in political activity (such as raising money on behalf of candidates) are exempt from paying taxes; the relevant section of the tax code is 501(c)(3). Congressman Herger (R-CA) introduced legislation in the House which would change the tax code to allow religiously affiliated groups to carry out political campaign activities and still maintain their tax exempt status so long as their campaign activities were not a "substantial part" of their work. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, religious groups should not receive favorable treatment vis-à-vis other non-profits (such as children's groups and humanitarian aid organizations). Moreover, Progressives argued, the bill would erode the constitutional separation of church and state; tax-free donations to the church, in their view, should not be used for partisan political purposes. A two-thirds majority vote was required to suspend House rules and allow for consideration of the measure. The motion to suspend the rules was defeated on a 178- 239 vote and the bill was rejected. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
H.R. 4600. Medical Malpractice Awards/Passage of Bill to Restrict Patients' Abilities to Bring Medical Malpractice
Lawsuits Against Negligent Doctors.
The subject of this vote is final passage of a bill that would impose limits on medical malpractice awards. Provisions in the bill would also prevent lawsuits against drug and medical device manufacturers if their products were either approved by the Food and Drug Administration or are generally considered safe. In the view of Progressives, the legislation would undermine patients' rights to the courts and discourage competent attorneys from taking legal action on behalf of victims of negligent and/or incompetent medical care. The legislation passed the House by a 217-203 vote margin. (The measure did not pass the Senate and was not signed into law.) CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
H.R. 4600. Medical Malpractice Awards/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Patients' Abilities to Bring
Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Against Negligent Doctors.
The motion to recommit is one of the few procedural rights afforded to opponents of legislation debated in the House. If successful, the motion recommits the bill to committee and is often accompanied with instructions to change the legislation to incorporate the concerns of opponents. During House debate on a bill to cap medical malpractice awards, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) motioned to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee add language that would have specified that the legislation would not preempt state laws relating to the liability of health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Progressives supported the recommit motion as a way to insure that HMOs-many of which base their medical decisions on cost considerations rather than the needs of their patients-are held liable for any decisions that cause serious harm or death to their patients. The motion to recommit the bill was defeated on a 193-225 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
H.R. 4600. Medical Malpractice Awards/Vote on Rules of Debate for a Bill to Restrict Patients' Abilities to Bring Medical
Malpractice Lawsuits Against Negligent Doctors.
Many Republicans attribute the rising costs of health care to malpractice suits brought against health care providers for negligent and/or incompetent medical care. In a move to curb the costs of those lawsuits, legislation was drafted that would limit the punitive damages awarded against medical providers and health insurers. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, patients' rights to the courts would be subverted. Moreover, Progressives argued that the cap on medical malpractice suits would discourage competent attorneys from taking legal action on behalf of victims. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on the underlying legislation. Before a matter can be considered on the House floor, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation but the rule was passed on a vote of 221-197. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Doctors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Doctors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
H.R. 2215. Justice Department Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of Justice Department Reauthorization Bill
Which Under-Funded the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
The purpose of authorizing legislation is to provide congressional appropriators (those lawmakers who sit on the Appropriations Committee) with a financial blueprint for future spending priorities. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on legislation to reauthorize spending for Justice Department operations. During debate on the motion, Progressives raised several concerns with the underlying authorization. In their view, the authorization bill failed to provide sufficient funding for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Among other things, the Civil Rights Division is responsible for insuring that law enforcement agents do not infringe upon the rights of citizens. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the authorizing legislation but the measure was adopted on a 208-199 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
H. Res. 544. Sense of the House Resolution/Passage of a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress
Should Pass Republican Pension Benefits Legislation.
Throughout 2002, Republicans sought to make permanent the various temporary provisions in the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001. One provision of the tax cut that the GOP wanted to make permanent involved tax breaks to encourage more pension and retirement contributions. Progressives opposed making pension tax breaks permanent because, in their view, extending such incentives was useless without first addressing corporate corruption because executives could still destroy retirement programs through corporate misbehavior. Progressives were also concerned that the technical complexity of the pension tax breaks under consideration would enable only those individuals with personal tax accountants to take advantage of them (the more affluent people are, the more likely they will use tax accountants). The employee pension tax break did not pass the Senate in 2002 and was not signed into law as a result. In a effort to admonish the Senate for its inaction, House GOP leaders drafted a "sense of the House" resolution which stated that Congress should pass employee pension tax breaks. Unlike all other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. Progressives opposed passage of the sense of the House resolution based on their objections to the underlying legislation. The resolution was adopted by a 291-118 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
H. Res. 540. Sense of the House Resolution/Passage of a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress
Should Pass Republican Pension Benefits Legislation.
Pension reform became a hot issue on Capitol Hill after scandals at Enron and other corporations caused employees to lose their retirement pensions. Enron, for instance, prevented its employees from selling their company stock; as Enron's stock value fell in response to the company's fraudulent accounting practices, so too did employee pension funds. In response to this and other corporate misbehavior, Republicans drafted a reform bill that would made it easier for employees to diversify company pension plans and would require employers to provide employees with outside investment advice. Progressives agreed with the goals of the GOP bill but they had problems with specifics of the legislation. Specifically, they worried that outside investment advisors would recommend stocks from the sale of which they would personally benefit. Progressives also opposed a provision in the bill which, in their view, would allow for a less equitable allocation of pension money between executives and employees. The GOP-drafted employee pension bill was not passed by the Senate. In an effort to castigate the Senate for its inaction on the measure, House GOP leaders drafted a "sense of the House" resolution which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should pass the employee pensions bill adopted by the House. Unlike all other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. Progressives opposed passage of the resolution based on their objections to the underlying legislation. The resolution was adopted on a 258-152 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
H. Res. 547. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Allow Consideration of Measure Expressing the Sense of the House
that Congress Should Adopt Republican Legislation in Areas of Employee Pensions, Tax Relief for Married Couples, and
Pension Benefits.
For legislation to pass Congress, the measure must be adopted by the House and the Senate in identical forms. Frequently, bills pass one legislative body but not the other and are defeated as a result. In an effort to admonish the Senate for its failure to act on several House-passed measures, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that the Senate should act on those issues. Unlike all other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are nonbinding and lack the force of law. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on three sense of the House resolutions. Those resolutions would urge Congress to pass legislation pertaining to employee pension funds, tax breaks for married couples, and incentives for pension and retirement contributions. Progressives opposed the motion to move the previous question based on their opposition to the GOP-drafted bills in those three areas. The motion was adopted on a 217-200 vote and the rule was subsequently adopted by voice vote (prior to House consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a functionary of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
H.R. 4691. Abortion Service Refusals/Passage of a Bill Which Jeopardizes Abortion Rights By Allowing Both Health
Care Providers to Refuse to Perform an Abortion and Insurance Companies to Reject Payment for Abortions.
The subject of this vote was House passage of legislation that would provide hospitals and other health care providers the right to refuse conducting an abortion and allow insurance companies to reject payment for abortions. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their estimation, the legislation would compromise a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Many areas of the country have few health care facilities that are able to perform abortions; allowing those facilities to refuse treatment to women seeking an abortion would, Progressives argued, require those women to travel great distances to receive the medical procedure. The legislation was adopted on a 229-189 vote. (Similar legislation did not pass the Senate and the measure was not signed into law.) AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Hospitals GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
H.R. 4691. Abortion Service Refusals/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Jeopardizes Abortion Rights By
Allowing Both Health Care Providers to Refuse to Perform an Abortion and Insurance Companies to Reject Payment for
Abortions.
One of the few procedural prerogatives extended to opponents of legislation in the House is the motion to recommit. That motion, if successful, recommits the bill to committee and is usually accompanied with instructions to change the legislation. During House debate on a bill that would provide hospitals and other health care providers an exemption from performing abortions and permit insurance companies to reject payment for abortions, Congressman Brown (D-OH) offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that would have added language in the bill to: 1) clarify that none of the bill's provisions would authorize a medical institution to withhold from patients medically appropriate information or services; 2) disallow a medical care facility from barring its employees from providing all medically appropriate information or services; and 3) prevent the federal law from preempting state laws and regulations. Progressives supported the motion to recommit because, in their view, the original text of the legislation would hinder the rights of women from choosing whether or not to have an abortion. The motion to recommit was rejected by a 191-230 vote margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Hospitals GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
H.R. 4691. Abortion Service Refusals/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Jeopardizes Abortion Rights By Allowing
Both Health Care Providers to Refuse to Perform an Abortion and Insurance Companies to Reject Payment for Abortions.
Prior to floor consideration of legislation, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on House debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a bill that would enable hospitals and other health care providers to refuse performing abortions and would also permit insurance companies to reject payment for abortions. In the view of Progressives, the bill would compromise a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and they opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. Especially in sparsely populated areas, Progressives argued, there may be a limited number of health care facilities able to perform an abortion; if those facilities were exempt from conducting abortions, women in those areas would likely have to travel great distances to receive the medical procedure. The rule was adopted on a 229-194 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Hospitals GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
H. Res. 524. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote on Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Repeal the Estate Tax.
In a symbolic gesture endorsing the repeal of the estate tax, House Republicans drafted a resolution that would express the "sense of the House" that before Congress adjourns, it should pass legislation to make permanent the estate tax repeal contained in the $1.35 trillion tax cut bill enacted in 2001 (in that bill, the estate tax would be reinstated in 2011). Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their estimation, the estate tax repeal disproportionately favored wealthy individuals. In a tough economic climate, Progressives argued, assistance should be provided to low and middle income taxpayers rather than high-income individuals. The resolution was adopted on a 242-158 vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
H. Res. 525. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Enact
Republican Welfare Overhaul Legislation.
Negotiations between the House and Senate over legislation to overhaul the welfare system failed to produce legislative agreement before Congress adjourned. Contentious provisions contained in the House bill would have added eligibility restrictions on welfare recipients and revoked welfare benefits for legal immigrants. Although agreement could not be reached on the welfare bill, Republicans drafted a resolution expressing the "sense of the House" that Congress should present President Bush a welfare reform bill (sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). Progressives opposed the resolution; in their view, the welfare reforms would adversely impact the welfare system by denying benefits to individuals in need. The resolution was adopted 280-123. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
H. Res. 524, H. Res. 525. Sense of the House Resolutions/Vote Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should
Enact Republican Welfare Overhaul Bill and Repeal the Estate Tax.
Prior to House consideration of a measure, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee (an arm of the majority party leadership) and usually limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amending activity on a measure. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a resolution that would express the "sense of the House" that the House and Senate reach agreement on welfare and estate tax legislation (sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their view, the welfare and estate tax bills would be bad public policies. Progressives opposed provisions in the welfare bill which would impose additional restrictions on welfare benefits and deny all benefits to legal immigrants. Moreover, in the view of Progressives, the estate tax repeal would only serve to benefit wealthy individuals rather than low and middle income taxpayers. The rule passed the House on a 213-200. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
H. Res. 524, H. Res. 525. Sense of the House Resolutions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Measure Expressing the Sense
of the House that Congress Should Enact Republican Welfare Overhaul Bill and Repeal the Estate Tax.
The House and Senate have been unable to find common ground on legislation to overhaul the welfare system and repeal the estate tax. On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule to allow debate on a bill expressing the "sense of the House" that agreement should be reached on welfare and estate tax legislation (sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). Progressives opposed the resolution because they objected to provisions contained in both bills. In the welfare bill, for instance, Progressives opposed language which would deny benefits to legal immigrants. Moreover, in the view of Progressives, repealing the estate tax would disproportionately wealthy individuals; low and middle income taxpayers, conversely, would not benefit from the estate tax repeal. The motion to move the previous question was adopted by a 214-202 margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Passage of a Bill to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-Own Industry.
The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill to impose federal rules on the rent-to-own industry. Those rules would classify rent-to-own contracts as leases rather than credit payments. Progressives favored the credit payment classification rather than lease payments because consumers would be provided more protections against merchants under such a classification. The Truth in Lending Act, for instance, protects consumers making credit payments but not lease payments. The rent-to-own regulations were adopted on a vote of 215-201. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— "Rent to Own" Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-
Own Industry.
In House debate, one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation considered is a motion to recommit. If successful, the recommit motion sends a measure back to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During debate on rent-to-own legislation, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) made a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee delete provisions in the bill that would impose federal rules on states that provide strong consumer protections against rent-toown merchants. Progressives voted in favor of the motion; in their view, the federal law classifying all rent-to-own contracts as leases rather than credit payments provided consumers with inadequate consumer protections against merchants. The motion to recommit was rejected 190-227. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— "Rent to Own" Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote to Protect Consumers Against Loss and Damage to Rent-To-Own Merchandise
Except In Cases of Intentional or Negligent Conduct.
Current law provides rent-to-own companies great latitude in holding their customers liable for loss, damage, or destruction of property (consumers, for instance, could be held liable for fire damage even if they were not at fault in the fire). During debate on rent-to-own legislation, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) proposed a measure which would have prevented merchants from making consumers liable for damage except in cases of intentional or negligent conduct. Progressives supported the Waters amendment because, in their view, consumers should be protected against rent-to-own merchants for damage that was not their fault. The Waters proposal was defeated on a vote of 157-255. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— "Rent to Own" Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-Own Industry by Mandating that
Total Cost of Merchandise Cannot Exceed Twice Its Cash Price.
During debate on legislation to impose federal rules on the rent-to-own industry, Congressman LaFalce (D-NY) offered an amendment which would have limited the total cost of a product bought through a rent-to-own contract to twice its cash price. Progressives endorsed LaFalce's proposal as a necessary consumer protection. Moreover, Progressives argued, many rent-to-own customers earn low incomes and are forced to rent because they cannot afford the cash price of the merchandise; those individuals, in the view of Progressives, should not pay an excessive amount before they are conferred ownership. The LaFalce amendment was defeated by a 184-232 margin. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— "Rent to Own" Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-Own
Industry.
The rent-to-own industry generates an estimated $5.3 billion in sales a year renting furniture, appliances, and other goods to consumers. After a consumer has paid a certain amount in rent-which is usually more than the original cost of the merchandise-they then have an option of buying the merchandise outright. Most states classify rent-to-own transactions as leases rather than credit payments. Classifying the transactions as credit payments, however, would provide consumers greater protections. Four states-Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Vermont-do classify those transactions as credit payments because most customers end up purchasing the merchandise. Legislation was drafted by the GOP to impose federal regulations on the rent-to-own industry. The most contentious provision in the bill would classify all rent-to-own transactions as leases (including transactions in those consumer-friendly states where they are considered credit payments). Progressives opposed the lease classification because it would provide consumers with fewer protections; unlike lease payments, credit payments confer a degree of ownership to the consumer. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on the rent-to-own bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). Progressives voted in opposition to the rule based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. The rule was adopted on a 238-178 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— "Rent to Own" Industry MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Consumer Protection |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
H.R. 5193. Education Tax Deduction/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Allow Public Funding of Private Schools.
On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on a bill which would allow low-income parents to deduct their child's private school education expenses (prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted). Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. Tax-exemptions for private school expenses, they argued, would essentially transfer taxpayer money to private schools much like a private-school voucher system. In the view of Progressives, taxpayer money should be spent on public schools and not private schools because low-income families rarely can afford a private school education for their children. The rule governing debate was narrowly adopted on a 208-201 vote. Subsequently, GOP leaders pulled the legislation from floor debate because they feared that moderate Republicans would support a Democratic motion to recommit the bill to committee. A motion to recommit, if successful, is usually a deathblow to a piece of legislation. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
H.R. 5203. Education Tax Break/Passage of a Bill to Provide a Public Subsidy to Private Schools.
In recent years, GOP education proposals have emphasized private-school vouchers and other proposals which provide tax breaks for families whose children attend private schools. Progressives have opposed the GOP-efforts because, in their view, taxpayer money should not be used for the benefit of private schools (tax breaks for private schools would reduce incoming revenue to U.S. Treasury that would be used for public purposes). The subject of this vote was passage of a bill which would have provide tax breaks for individuals whose children attend private schools. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their view, improving the U.S. education system is best achieved by focusing attention on public schools rather than creating incentives for families to send their children to private schools. The legislation was considered under a suspension of House rules, a procedure which is usually reserved for non-controversial bills and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The purpose of the suspension procedure is to expeditiously dispose of noncontroversial measures (suspending the rules limits the available time to debate the legislation and bars amendments). The motion to suspend the rules on the education tax break proposal failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority vote and was defeated 213-188. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Separation of Church & State |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
H.R. 3009. Trade Promotion Authority/Final Passage of a Conference Report Enabling the President to Place International
Trade Agreements Above Worker and Environmental Protections.
The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report which would grant the president with trade promotion authority on international trade agreements reached before June 1, 2005. The new executive power would limit congressional influence in international trade agreements to an up-or-down vote; no amendments to those agreements would be allowed during congressional debate on the matter. Progressives opposed the conference report because, in their view, congressional influence in international trade agreements should be preserved; providing the president with added leverage in international bargaining, they argued, would undermine the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. The conference report passed the House by a narrow 215- 212 margin, was later adopted by the Senate, and was signed into law by President Bush. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
H.R. 3009. Trade Promotion Authority/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Enabling the President to Place International
Trade Agreements Above Worker and Environmental Protections.
Since 1994, trade agreements between the U.S. President and leaders of foreign countries have required congressional approval (treaties with foreign countries, it should be noted, require congressional approval as specified in the Constitution; international trade agreements, however, are not treaties). In an effort to provide President Bush with additional power in foreign trade negotiations, congressional Republicans sought passage of a bill which would restrict Congress's ability to modify executive agreements with foreign nations. These so-called "fast-track" or "trade promotion authority" powers granted to the president would limit Congress to an up-or-down vote on any international trade agreement; no amendments to the agreement would be allowed. Progressives opposed the grant of authority to the executive so as to preserve congressional influence in international affairs; restricting congressional input to an up-ordown vote, Progressives argued, would diminish Congress's power and undermine the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a conference report which would provide the president with trade promotion authority for international trade agreements reached before June 1, 2005. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. The rule was adopted on a 220-200 vote. ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
H. Res. 507. Waiver of House Rules/Vote to Reduce Procedural Rights of Minority Party by Circumventing House Rules
on the Consideration of Legislation.
Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). However, if the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement and allow for same day consideration of three pieces of legislation-which pertained to trade promotion authority, bankruptcy reform, and election reform-Republicans proposed a resolution to waive the twothirds requirement and allow three rules governing debate on those bills to be passed with a simple majority vote. Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their view, the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary maneuvering violated their procedural rights. The motion to adopt the resolution providing for same-day consideration of the three rules was passed 217-207. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Final Passage of Anti-Labor (Republican) Version of Bill
Which Restricts Labor Rights of Public Employees in Department and Limits Congressional Oversight of Department.
In the wake of the September 11th attacks, congressional Democrats sought to consolidate those federal agencies with a role in protecting the U.S. against terrorist attacks into a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new Department would include such agencies as the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others. The consolidation plan, Democrats argued, would foster information-sharing among the agencies and would offer better protections against possible future attacks. President Bush initially rejected the Democratic plan but later developed a similar proposal of his own. Progressives opposed the Bush proposal for two main reasons. First, the new Department would not be subjected to the same level of congressional oversight as are other executive Departments. The new Department, Progressives worried, would be immune from congressional scrutiny and the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between Congress and the White House would be undermined as a result. Second, the bill would allow the administration to restrict the ability of DHS employees to join a union and negotiate collective bargaining agreements (those rights which are provided to federal employees in every other executive Department). In the view of Progressives, the limitations on labor rights for DHS employees was unfair; those employees, Progressives argued, should be afforded the same labor rights they enjoyed prior to their transfer to the DHS (most DHS employees would be transferred from other federal agencies). The subject of this vote was final passage of the administration's DHS consolidation plan. Progressives opposed final passage for the two reasons described above. On a vote of 295-132, the legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security was adopted. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Airports HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights LABOR RIGHTS— General Union Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow Congressional Oversight of Department.
Legislation which would consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) included a provision providing additional exemptions to the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beyond the nine exemptions originally provided for in the 1966 law. During House debate on the measure, Congressman Davis (R-VA) offered an amendment which would extend those additional FOIA exemptions to other agencies as determined by the secretary of the new Department. Progressives opposed the Davis proposal because, in their view, citizens should have a right to obtain declassified information about their government. The Davis measure was rejected by a 195-233 vote margin. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow Congressional Oversight of Department and
Protect the Labor Rights of Public Employees in Department.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted by Congress in 1966 to insure that every citizen has a right, enforceable in court, to access to federal agency records. Provisions in a bill to merge twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), however, include additional exemptions to FOIA beyond the nine exemptions originally provided for in the 1966 law. During debate on the DHS consolidation bill, Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL) proposed legislation that would have deleted those additional FOIA exemptions from the underlying legislation. The amendment Schakowsky would have also allowed additional protections for federal employees who report illegal activities in their agency or department. Progressives supported both provisions of the Schakowsky proposal as a way to insure that any wrongdoing in the new DHS can be exposed; either by the public through its access to declassified DHS information or by DHS employees themselves. The Schakowsky measure was struck down on a 188- 240 vote. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Right to Government Information |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Retain Deadline For Installation of Airport Bomb
Detectors.
One provision in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consolidation legislation would extend the deadline for airports to install bomb detection equipment by one year to December 31, 2003. During debate on the DHS consolidation plan, Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) proposed an amendment which would have eliminated the deadline extension; had Oberstar's proposal passed, airports would be required to have bomb detection equipment in place by December 31, 2002. Progressives supported the Oberstar amendment because, in their view, bomb detection equipment should be installed as soon as possible to insure the safety of airline passengers. The Oberstar measure was defeated on by a 211-217 vote margin. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Airports MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Exempt Private Airport Security Screening
Companies From Liability for Negligent Actions.
During debate on the Homeland Security Department consolidation plan, Congressman Armey (R-TX) offered a manager's amendment. Manager's amendments usually make cosmetic changes to the underlying legislation to ease implementation of the law and are usually non-controversial (a "manager" is the lawmaker responsible for leading debate for the majority party on the House or Senate floor). The Armey amendment, however, included a provision which would exempt airport security screening companies from liability for negligent actions. Progressives opposed this provision in the amendment because, in their view, the previously-considered Turner amendment was a more responsible approach for providing legal protections for companies who may have produced or used faulty anti-terrorism technologies such as bomb detectors and luggage-screening equipment (see Roll Call Vote #359). The Armey amendment, they argued, would extend legal protections to negligent actions by Argenbright, Globe Aviation Services, Huntleigh, and other security companies. Progressives pointed out that Argenbright had hired a number of convicted felons for security screening positions. In February of 2002, a Globe security screener fell asleep at a checkpoint and caused the entire Louisville airport to be evacuated as a result. In May of 2002, Huntleigh screeners allowed a man through security with two loaded semiautomatic pistols. The companies responsible for these and other negligent actions, Progressives contended, should be held legally accountable. The Armey amendment was adopted by a 222-204 vote margin. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Airport Security Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Airport Security Industry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Protect the Labor Rights of Employees in Department.
Legislation drafted by the White House to consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security contained provisions which would limit employment protections for DHS employees. During debate on the bill, Congressman Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment which would have reinstated civil service employment protections for all federal workers who are transferred into the new Department. Progressives endorsed Waxman's amendment because, in their view, DHS employees should have the same employment protections that other federal employees enjoy. Providing the president with the ability to fire or demote federal employees in the new Department, Progressives argued, would give the administration undue leverage over the DHS workforce which might be abused by management. The Waxman proposal was rejected on a 208-220 vote. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Hold Private Security Screening Companies Liable
for Negligent Actions and Promote the Development of Anti-Terrorism Technologies.
During debate on the Department of Homeland Security consolidation plan, Congressman Turner (D-TX) offered an amendment which would have protected companies that produce anti-terrorism technologies for federal, state, and local governments against lawsuits. Progressives supported the Turner bill because, in their view, the amendment reached a responsible compromise between expediting the implementation of anti-terrorism technologies and protecting the safety of airline passengers from the use of faulty anti-terrorism equipment by airline security employees. Unlike the Armey amendment (see Roll Call Vote #361), the Turner proposal would not provide legal protections for negligent actions by airline security employees unless the anti-terrorism equipment used by those employees-such as bomb detectors and luggage screening devices-was found to be defective. Progressives supported the legal protections for companies that develop anti-terrorism technologies as a way to inspire the development of more and better anti-terrorism equipment to protect airline passengers. In the view of Progressives, however, legal protections should not be extended to airline security companies whose employees misused effective anti-terrorism equipment. Despite the support from Progressives, the Turner amendment was narrowly rejected on a 214-215 vote. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Airport Security Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Airport Security Industry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow President to Nullify Collective Bargaining
Rights of Public Employees in Department
Legislation drafted by the Bush Administration to merge twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security contained language which would restrict the ability of DHS employees from negotiating collective bargaining agreements. During debate on the bill, Congressman Quinn (R-NY) offered an amendment which would allow the president to nullify collective bargaining agreements for national security reasons. In the view of Progressives, DHS employees should be afforded the same labor rights as other federal employees and opposed the Quinn amendment for that reason. Enabling the president to suspend collective bargaining agreements in the interest of national security, Progressives argued, would provide the president with an undue influence over federal employees; the term "national security", Progressives pointed out, could be used by the president to justify nullifying collective bargaining agreements in a host of circumstances that may or may not directly pertain to U.S. national security. The Quinn amendment was adopted on a 227-202 vote. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote on Compromise Measure to Protect the Labor Rights of
Public Employees in Department.
Legislation was drafted by the Bush Administration to consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bill included provisions which would limit the labor rights of federal employees who would be transferred to the new Department. During debate on the legislation, Congresswoman Morella (R-MD) proposed an amendment which would have allowed federal employees who are transferred to the new Department to join a union if they were under union protection before their transfer. Morella's amendment would have allowed the president to revoke those union rights only for those employees whose duties directly pertain to preventing terrorist activities. In the view of Progressives, the labor rights of federal employees should not be limited by the president if they transfer to the new department. However, Progressives supported Morella's amendment because in their view, language in the Morella amendment offered better labor union protections for federal employees and was less likely to be abused by the executive than competing proposals such as the Shays amendment (see Roll Call Vote #356). The Morella amendment was rejected by a 208-222 vote margin. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow the President to Revoke the Labor Rights of
Public Employees in Department.
A major source of contention during debate on the administration's plan to consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) centered on labor rights for DHS employees. Under President Bush's consolidation plan, labor rights-such as the right to unionize and negotiate collective bargaining agreements-would not be extended to many DHS employees. During debate on the DHS legislation, Congressman Shays (R-CT) proposed legislation which would grant DHS employees the right to unionize unless the president certified that the unionization would hurt homeland security. Progressives opposed Shays's amendment because, in their view, the president should not be allowed to revoke the labor rights of any federal employee. The language in the amendment, they worried, could be interpreted broadly by the administration to deny the labor rights of numerous DHS employees. The Shays measure was adopted on a 229-201 vote. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow the U.S. Military to Assist in Domestic Law
Enforcement.
Since 1878, it has been a crime to deploy Federal troops as enforcers of civilian law. During debate on a bill which would consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Congressman Rogers (DKY) proposed legislation which would have authorized the secretary of DHS to establish a Joint Interagency Security Task Force to assist in domestic law enforcement activities. Progressives opposed the Roger's amendment because, in their view, the roles of the military and law enforcement in protecting the U.S. should remain distinct. Allowing military involvement in domestic law enforcement, Progressives worried, would reduce civil liberties because servicemen are not trained to enforce civilian law. Moreover, Progressives voiced concerns that the military could be used for political ends in civilian matters and thereby produce a repressive, totalitarian state. Despite opposition from Progressives, Rogers' amendment was adopted on a 240-188 vote. WAR & PEACE— Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Keep the Customs Service Distinct From the Massive
(and Potentially Cumbersome) Department of Homeland Security.
Like other agencies, the Customs Service handles critical homeland security functions (such as border protection) as well as non-homeland security functions (such as regulating currency). During debate on the Department of Homeland (DHS) consolidation plan, Congressman Cardin (D-MD) offered an amendment which would have preserved the Customs Service as a distinct entity within the new Department. Progressives supported the Cardin measure because, in their view, the non-security functions of the Customs Service (which was formerly housed in the Treasury Department) should not be included in the new Department. In the view of Progressives, the grant of executive authority provided in the DHS consolidation should be limited to preserve the constitutionally-mandated balance of power between Congress and the White House. The non-security functions of the Customs Service, Progressives worried, would not be subjected to the same level of congressional oversight if the agency was absorbed by the DHS (the administration's consolidation plan would limit congressional oversight on DHS activities). The Cardin amendment was defeated on a 177-245 vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Keep the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Distinct From the Massive (and Potentially Cumbersome) Department of Homeland Security.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the federal agency responsible for directing and coordinating activities on the ground during an emergency situation. In an effort to streamline the jurisdiction of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during debate on the DHS consolidation bill, Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) proposed an amendment which would have maintained FEMA's status as an independent federal agency. In the view of Progressives, Oberstar's proposal was necessary to insure that FEMA would continue to respond quickly to emergency situations. Including FEMA with numerous other agencies within the DHS, Progressives worried, would require enormous bureaucratic coordination and could hinder FEMA's ability to respond quickly as situations warrant. More generally, Progressives supported Oberstar's amendment as a way to limit the size and scope of the new Department. In contrast to other executive departments, the legislation which would create the DHS limited congressional oversight in DHS affairs. Progressives worried that congressional influence in domestic security activities, which were already limited in the DHS legislation, would be further diminished if the DHS contained agencies that were not directly involved in preventing future terrorist attacks. Despite the support from Progressives, the Oberstar amendment was rejected by a 165-261 vote margin. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Department
Activities.
In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, congressional Democrats sought to consolidate those federal agencies which play a role in protecting the U.S. against terrorist attacks into a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new Department would include the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service among others. The consolidation plan, Democrats argued, would foster information-sharing among the agencies and would therefore offer better protections against possible future attacks. President Bush initially rejected the idea but later crafted a similar restructuring of his own. One major difference between the Democrats' proposal and the Bush plan involved congressional oversight of the new Department. Under the Democratic plan, DHS activities would be subject to oversight and the director of the DHS would require Senate confirmation. The Bush plan, conversely, contained neither of these provisions. During debate on the administration's proposal, Congressman Waxman (D-CA) proposed an amendment which would have tightened congressional oversight of the new Department. Progressives supported the Waxman amendment because, in their view, the new Department should be subject to the standards of congressional scrutiny faced by other executive agencies. The Bush plan, Progressives worried, would erode Congress's influence in security matters and therefore undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to the Waxman proposal and the measure was defeated on a 175-248 vote. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
H.R. 4946. Long-Term Health Care/Motion to Suspend House Rules and Pass a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Wealthy
Seniors Enrolled in Long-Term Health Plans.
Legislation which would grant tax breaks for the purchase of long-term health care was considered under a suspension of House rules. The suspension procedure-which is usually reserved for non-controversial measures-limits the time available for debate, bars amendments to the legislation, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Progressives voted in opposition to the suspension motion based on their opposition to the underlying bill. According to Progressives, only wealthy individuals can afford the high costs of long-term health care; very few lower-income individuals enroll in long-term health care plans as a result (on average, those plans cost $1,007 annually for 65-year olds and $4,100 annually for 79-year olds). In the view of Progressives, assisting low-income seniors with their health care costs is more important than providing tax breaks for wealthy seniors. The motion to suspend the rules and adopt the longterm health care tax breaks was adopted on a 362-61 vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry HEALTH CARE— Aid to the Chronically Ill |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
HR 4628. Authorizing Intelligence Programs for 2003/Vote to Establish an Independent Task Force to Examine Security
Failures Involving the September 11th Attacks.
After the September 11th attacks, the House and Senate intelligence committees set about the task of finding what, if anything, went wrong with U.S. intelligence efforts. But the committees struggled under the sheer size of the burden; both their members and other members of Congress began to get frustrated at the pace of the investigation. Progressives and Democrats in general began to wonder whether the Bush administration wanted the investigation to go slowly, to postpone uncovering embarrassing lapses in intelligence. They proposed an amendment to the bill authorizing intelligence programs for 2003 that would create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate lapses in the intelligence community. Progressives voted "yes" on this amendment, which won support from all but four Democrats and a sizeable minority of Republicans. The amendment passed 219-188. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power WAR & PEACE— Intelligence Agencies' Oversight |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
HR 4965. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Final Passage of a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning
"Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.
The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision prevented most restrictions on a woman's access to abortion. In an attempt to ban as much as possible within the confines of the decision, Republicans focused on a procedure that they called "partial birth" abortion and physicians called "intact dilation and extraction." This type of abortion was used to protect the health of the mother once the pregnancy had passed a certain point. Republicans proposed a ban on dilation and extraction abortions that made an exception only for the life of the mother, not her health, and potentially banned abortions of fetuses that were not viable outside the womb and so could not be considered "alive" according to precedents handed down by Supreme Court. For these reasons, Progressives argued the ban was unconstitutional. They opposed the ban, not simply because they believed in a woman's right to choose, but because it seemed foolish to them to pass a law that would only be struck down by the Supreme Court. The voted "no," but the ban passed 274-151. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
HR 4965. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights
By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.
Republicans wanted to restrict access to abortion as much as the constitution would permit, so they proposed a bill to ban "intact dilation and extraction" abortions. Republicans called these "partial birth" abortions, but they were performed in rare cases when the health of the mother was in question but the pregnancy had passed a certain point. Progressives argued that this ban still ran afoul of constitutional restrictions because it made no exception for the health of the mother. To try to add such an exemption, Baldwin (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that a health exception be added. Progressives voted for this motion because they believed a health exception was essential, but it was rejected 187-241. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
HR 4965. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By
Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.
Republicans had long sought to ban a rare procedure they called "partial birth" abortion. Physicians called this procedure "intact dilation and extraction," and used it to protect the health of the mother when the abortion was performed past a certain stage in the pregnancy. When Republicans in the House proposed banning the procedure, pro-choice members-including Progressivesargued the ban was unconstitutional because it made no exception for the mother's health and could potentially ban abortions of fetuses that could not survive outside the womb. In the House, most bills come with a set of instructions for the conduct of debate that must be passed before the bill itself can be considered. This "rule" was unusually restrictive for the bill to ban dilation and extraction abortions. In an attempt to prevent pro-choice members from proposing exceptions for the health of the mother, the rule banned any amendments to the bill. Progressives would have opposed the rule one way or the other, but they were particularly angry at being closed out of the debate. Nonetheless, a number of antiabortion Democrats voted for the rule and it passed by a healthy margin 248-177. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Restrict Funding to Implement Tax Breaks for Private
Companies.
The spending bills that travel through Congress every year are broad enough in scope to encourage amendments on a wide range of subjects, and the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House for 2003 was no exception. Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment that would forbid spending money to implement tax breaks for private companies whose pension plans violated federal pension, age discrimination, and other tax laws. Progressives supported this amendment as a roundabout way to force corporate America to obey existing law. Progressives voted "yes," and the amendment was adopted 308-121. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Make Across-the-Board Cuts in All Programs Under the
Purview of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill.
Fiscal conservatives have generally felt that the government spends more than it should. They felt this way about the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House, even though the bill as proposed did not exceed President Bush's spending target by much. One of the fiscal conservatives, Hefley (R-CO), proposed an amendment that would have cut one percent across the board from all departments and agencies covered by the spending bill. Progressives opposed this move as a clumsy attempt to starve the government of cash. They voted "no" on the amendment, and enough Republican defectors and fellow Democrats joined them to carry the day by a large margin. The amendment was defeated, 147-282. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Cut Allowances for Ex-Presidents to Prevent Their
Participation in Public Life.
The large spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House covered a wide range of programs and so encouraged a wide range of amendments. Hefley (R-CO) proposed an amendment to the bill that would have cut 10 percent from the $3.3 million financial allowances for ex-presidents. Progressives saw this as an attempt to cut money for the sake of cutting money. They believed the cut proposed was miniscule in the larger scale of the budget, but large in its effects on the ability of the former presidents to travel and engage in public life. They voted against the cut in funding, and the amendment was rejected 165-265. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Limit Outsourcing of Public Services Under the Purview of the
Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill.
One of President Bush's domestic goals was to reduce the size of the federal workforce as much as possible. Toward that end, the administration was aggressively pursuing efforts to contract services out to the private sector. Moran (D-VA) proposed an amendment to the spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House that prohibited setting quotas for such outsourcing. Progressives supported this amendment because they saw no need to outsource for the sake of outsourcing, and they felt quotas would encourage the privatization of government jobs just to meet a numerical goal and with no other rationale. Progressives voted for the amendment and it passed, 261-166. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Improve Livelihood of Cubans By Restricting Funds to
Enforce the Embargo on Cuba.
Opponents of restrictions on relations with Cuba saw an opening with the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, and the White House. They proposed a series of amendments to starve the restrictions of the money needed for enforcement, including one amendment by Rangel (D-NY), who proposed forbidding spending on the Cuban economic embargo. Progressives supported Rangel's amendment, because they believed the embargo was ineffective and only hurt the Cuban people. Though two other amendments along these lines had passed, this effort to kill the embargo lost the crucial Republican support it needed. Progressives voted "yes," but the amendment was rejected 204-226. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Improve Livelihood of Cubans By Restricting Funds to
Enforce the Embargo on Cuba.
After 42 years, the coalition in support of severe restrictions on relations with Cuba was beginning to unravel. Opponents saw opportunities to dismantle the restrictions in the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House. Flake (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to this spending bill that forbade any money for the enforcement of a ban on sending money to family in Cuba. Without money, the ban would be unenforceable. Progressives supported this amendment because they believed the ban on sending money to family restricted legitimate behavior, hurt nobody but the Cuban people, and did nothing to undermine the Castro regime. They voted for the amendment, and it passed 251-177. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— America's Poor HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Restrict Funds to Enforce the Ban on Travel to Cuba.
Opponents of the 42-year-old ban on travel to Cuba wanted to use the spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House to undermine the ban. They supported an amendment to this spending bill brought by Flake (R-AZ). The amendment forbade any spending on enforcement of the travel ban, thus effectively killing it by starving it for cash. Progressives supported this amendment because they felt the travel ban was a restriction on personal liberty that had done nothing in 40 years to undermine the Castro regime. Together with virtually all Democrats and a sizable minority of Republicans, the amendment was adopted 262-167. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Undermine the Restriction of Funds to Enforce the Ban on
Travel to Cuba.
In 2002, the annual spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, and the White House became embroiled in a debate about the country's relationship to Cuba. Most Democrats and even many Republicans wanted to lift the ban on travel to Cuba. Progressives in particular felt the ban was a restriction on personal liberty and an ineffective means of undermining the Castro regime. They supported denying funding for enforcement of the ban as a way of eliminating it, an approach they could pursue through the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. To forestall efforts to starve the travel ban of funds, Goss (RFL) proposed an amendment that allowed cutting funds for the ban only if the president certified that the Cuban government did not possess weapons of mass destruction and was not aiding terrorists. The majority in Congress who opposed the travel ban-including Progressives-saw this amendment for what it was: an attempt to smother any change under the broader but unrelated issue of the war on terrorism. With Progressives voting "no," the amendment was rejected 182-247. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill
Which Prevented Consideration of an Amendment Designed to Forbid Federal Contracts to Companies that Incorporated
Overseas to Avoid Taxes.
In terms of federal spending, the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the White House, and a number of other federal agencies are all considered together on a single bill. It is also typical in the House to require the rules for debate on a bill-commonly referred to as the bill's "rule"-to be passed before the bill itself is considered. The rule for the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill allowed DeLauro (D-CT) to propose an amendment that forbade federal contracts for companies that incorporated overseas to avoid taxes. Progressives approved of this amendment, because they felt this corporate practice was unfair to other taxpayers and should be brought under control. However, the rule for the Treasury-Postal bill also allowed a point of order against this amendment that was sure to kill the amendment itself. Progressives opposed this point of order provision because they supported DeLauro's amendment. As a result, they could not support the rule itself. They voted "no," but the rule was passed 224-188. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
HR 5121. Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Restrict Funding to an Investigation into Incidences In
Which Wealth Citizens Renounce Their Citizenship to Avoid Paying Taxes.
In 1999, Archer (R-TX) had requested a report on the problem of wealthy U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes, and Moran (D-VA) suspected it was because Republicans did not agree with the report's conclusions. He proposed an amendment that would have cut $590,000 from the committee's funding until it released the report. Progressives supported the amendment because, like Moran, they suspected the report contained ammunition against Republicans. They voted for the amendment, but it was rejected 206-213. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
HR 5121. Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate Which Would Jeopardize Passage of an
Amendment to Insure Funding for an Investigation into Incidences In Which Wealth Citizens Renounce Their Citizenship
to Avoid Paying Taxes.
The Joint Committee on Taxation had been asked in 1999 to produce a report on the consequences to government revenue of wealthy U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid their taxes. But the committee had offered nothing by 2002. Progressives suspected the report was being held up because it contained conclusions Republicans did not like. Moran (D-VA) proposed a novel way to pry the report loose: an amendment to the bill funding Congress for the year that would have cut $590,000 from the Joint Committee's budget until it released the report. In the House, bills are normally considered under a special resolution that sets the rules for debate on that bill only. This "rule" must be passed separately before the bill itself can be considered. The rule for the bill funding Congress failed to protect Moran from a potential procedural point of order that could be brought against his amendment. Progressives disagreed with this part of the rule, because they felt Moran's amendment should be considered on its merits. They voted against the rule, but it passed 219-206, thus allowing the point of order and virtually guaranteeing that Moran's amendment would fail. FAIR TAXATION— More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Cut Funding for Land Conservation.
The Interior Department manages federal lands, administers a wide range of domestic programs, and handles relations between the American Indian tribes and the federal government. Among the programs under the aegis of the department in 2002 were a firefighting program and a program to buy land for conservation purposes. Shadegg (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to the bill that funded Interior for 2003 that cut $36 million from the land acquisition program and added $23.1 million to the firefighting program. Progressives disagreed with these priorities: they felt both programs needed adequate funding, that there was no need to favor firefighting, and that firefighting in fact had enough money to meet its current needs. With the help of "no" votes from Progressives, the amendment was rejected 153-269. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Protect Wildlife Refuges in Washington and Oregon.
One of the many responsibilities of the Department of the Interior is the management of public lands. As a result, a number of amendments relating to land management were proposed during the debate on the bill to fund the Interior Department for 2003. Blumenauer (D-OR) proposed one such amendment: a ban on new leases for agricultural development on the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife refuges in Oregon and Washington. Progressives favored the ban, which was meant to stop overuse of the water in the area so that fish and wildlife there would be protected. They were joined by most other Democrats and even 23 Republicans, but the amendment was still rejected 201-223. ENVIRONMENT— Clean Water/Water Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Ban Off-Shore Oil Drilling in California.
The Department of the Interior is charged with managing federal lands, including the water just off the country's coastline. Capps (D-CA) used this fact to her advantage. When the bill to fund the Interior Department came up for debate, she proposed an amendment that banned oil drilling off the coast of California. Progressives supported the ban because they believed that oil drilling platforms were unsightly and that such drilling risked major oil spills and damage to the environment. To support their argument for a California ban, they pointed to a similar ban that President Bush had imposed on drilling off the coast of Florida. The amendment was adopted 252-172. ENVIRONMENT— Global Warming ENVIRONMENT— Oceanic Conservation ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Reduce Funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) provides grants to artists to help underwrite their work. Conservatives dislike the program because they dislike much of the art produced with NEA grants. In an effort to weaken the NEA, Tancredo (R-CO) proposed an amendment to the annual bill that funds the program that transferred $50 million from the NEA to the Forest Service. Progressives opposed the transfer of funds because they supported the work of the NEA. Morevoer, the House had earlier adopted an amendment that transferred $10 million into the NEA (vote no. 310), so they were unlikely to support transferring $50 million out again. Their opposition helped kill the amendment by a wide margin, 123-300. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
HR 5093. Regulating Corporate Fraud/Motion to Instruct Conferees to Adopt More Stringent Senate Language When
Drafting Conference Report.
Scandals at companies like Enron and WorldCom had shaken investor confidence in the accuracy of corporate financial statements. Republicans began to feel pressure to enact reform as the midterm elections approached, so under hurried circumstances they proposed a bill that increased fines and jail time for fraudulent reporting of finances. This bill passed (vote no. 299), and though Progressives agreed with its provisions in general, they did not feel the bill went far enough to curb malfeasance by corporate executives. House and Senate negotiators had yet to work together to develop a final version of the bill. Taking advantage of this situation, Conyers (D-MI) moved to instruct the negotiators from the House side to accept certain changes in the Senate bill, including protections for corporate whistleblowers, an extension of the statute of limitations for claims of securities fraud, forcing auditors to maintain records of an audit for at least five years, and increasing prison sentences in cases of fraud with extremely negative consequences. Progressives supported this motion as a way to beef up the regulations in the bill, but it was rejected 207-218. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Securities/Brokerage Industry HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Individuals in the Workplace |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Protect the American Indian Gaming Industry, An Important Source of
Revenue to Tribes, From Government Interference.
The Department of the Interior serves a number of functions: it manages public lands, it administers a range of domestic programs, and it handles federal relations with American Indians. In relation to this last function, Republicans inserted a provision in the Interior funding bill for 2003 that established a commission to study Indian gaming. Progressives opposed this provision because they saw it as a way to undermine an industry that was permitted according to existing law and that had benefited a number of tribes. They supported a Hayworth (R-AZ) amendment that struck this gaming provision from the funding law. The amendment was adopted 273-151. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Eliminate Restrictions on a Review of Money Owed to American
Indians.
The Department of the Interior manages public lands, administers a wide range of domestic programs, and oversees relations between the federal government and American Indians. Interior had been charged with managing an account for the money tribes received for commercial exploitation of their land. This account had been set up in 1885, but had been famously mismanaged ever since. The Clinton administration had begun the process of tracking down all the money that was owed to these tribes since 1885, and by 2002 the process still had another ten years to go. Republicans had inserted a provision into the bill that funded the Interior Department for 2003 that cut the time period covered by this review from 118 years to 18 years. Progressives considered this just another attempt to deny American Indians the funds that had been promised to them by law. They supported an amendment by Rahall (D-WV) that cut this provision and maintained the account review for the whole period since 1885. The amendment passed by a wide margin, 281-144. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Native Americans HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Increase Funding to the NEA and NEH to Underwrite the Work of
Artists
This amendment was part of a larger debate on funding the Interior Department, which mostly handles the administration of public lands. However, the bill to fund this department also provided funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), agencies created to underwrite the work of artists and scholars. Slaughter (D-NY) proposed an amendment to the Interior Department bill that added $10 million to the NEA and $5 million to the NEH by removing the money from the administrative expenses of other programs. Progressives supported the work of both agencies, so they favored the move. The amendment passed, 234-192. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Procedural Vote to Curtail a Stream of Republican Amendments Designed to
Cut Funding for Programs Under the Purview of the Interior Appropriations Bill.
The Interior Department manages public lands and a wide range of other domestic programs. The bill to fund this department for 2003 received some initial opposition from Progressives for failing to spend enough, but the most serious early challenge came from fiscal conservatives, who felt it spent too much. They proposed a few highly unpopular measures to cut funding to the Bureau of Land Management; when one failed, they would propose the next, in the belief that they could wear down the opposition and slip one of their amendments through. After a few of these measures, Progressives and Democrats in general grew tired of the exercise. Dicks (D-WA) moved to rise to the Committee of the Whole-a procedural motion that would end the fiscal conservatives' amendments and close business for the day. Progressives voted "yes" on this motion because they wanted to move on with the debate. The motion came very close to passing-it was rejected by only one vote, 209-210- which was enough to convince the Republican leadership that the legislative day should be ended. A motion to adjourn was adopted by a voice (unrecorded) vote shortly after. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
HR 4866. Amending the Higher Education Act/Protest Vote Against Republicans' Strong Arm Tactics in Debate On the
Higher Education Act.
At issue in this vote was a bill that made a number of technical amendments to the Higher Education Act. These amendments were mostly designed to ease student access to educational loans and other sources of funding from the federal government. Progressives had no complaints about the substance of the bill itself. What they disliked was the process of passing it: Republicans had proposed the bill under "suspension of the rules," which prevents any amendments to the bill and requires a twothirds vote to pass it. Progressives and Democrats in general had a number of amendments they wanted to add to the bill, including provisions to encourage teachers to work in low-income areas, to waive student loans for the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, to permit student loans for those who had been convicted of a drug offense before applying for the loan (as opposed to during the loan period), and many more. Many of the Democratic amendments were even supported by a substantial number of Republicans. Progressives were angry that the Republicans chose to shut them out of the process, and they voted against the higher education bill in protest, despite supporting many of its provisions. With the help of these Progressive "no" votes, the bill fell short of the 282 votes needed to pass, 246-177. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate to Provide Funding for the Management of Public
Lands.
The Department of the Interior administers a wide range of programs, most of them involving the management of public lands. However, the bill to fund this department for 2003 also included funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Progressives felt the funding in the bill for these two programs was inadequate. Because they opposed the bill as it was originally proposed by Republicans, they also opposed the bill's "rule": the set of instructions for debate that must be passed before the bill can be considered. They voted "no" on this rule, but it had enough Democratic and Republican support to pass by a wide margin, 322-101. EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Final Passage of Bill Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By Arming
Commercial Airline Pilots.
A coalition of Republicans and about half of Democrats favored arming airline pilots in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Progressives disliked this idea, believing that putting guns into airplanes would only increase the risk of injury and possibly even hijacking. The final form of the bill required at least 250 pilots to participate in training within two months of the bill's enactment, and pilots and airlines would be exempt from liability for harm done in the defense of the plane. Progressives could not support such a program, so they voted against the bill. However, is passed on a bipartisan vote of 310-113. WAR & PEACE— Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Vote to Limit Scope of Program Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By
Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.
Most Republicans and many Democrats felt that pilots in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks should be armed to prevent another hijacking. Those who were skeptical but felt the idea had merit wrote a bill that armed a maximum of 2 percent of all pilots on a temporary basis. Progressives supported this more modest approach if they supported anything at all, because they were concerned that pilots with guns would create more dangers than they would prevent. Supporters of a more aggressive program, on the other hand, had proposed an amendment that removed the 2 percent cap and made the program permanent. This amendment had passed, but those who had crafted the original plan called for a vote on the amendment again, in hopes it would not fare as well the second time. Progressives voted against this amendment the second time just as they had before, believing a test program was a wiser first step. However, the vote was largely the same. The amendment was rejected 251-172. WAR & PEACE— Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Vote to Broaden Scope and Speed Implementation of Program Which Would Risk
Injury and Hijacking By Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks, a bipartisan coalition supported arming airline pilots to help prevent another hijacking. Progressives were skeptical of such an idea, believing that armed pilots might create more dangers to the passengers and crew than they would eliminate. But others felt the existing plan did not go far enough. Hostettler (R-IN) proposed an amendment that not only allowed all pilots to receive handguns, it required 20 percent of initial volunteers to be trained within half a year of the bill's passage. Progressives disliked giving the pilots guns in the first place, so they also disagreed with speeding the law's implementation. They voted "no," and the amendment was rejected 169-256. WAR & PEACE— Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Vote to Make Permanent a Program Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By
Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.
Republicans and many Democrats decided after September 11th that commercial pilots needed to carry firearms to defend themselves. A compromise bill was crafted that introduced the idea as a test program, with a maximum of 2 percent of pilots participating. Progressives favored this more limited approach because they did not agree with the idea of giving weapons to those not adequately prepared to use them. DeFazio (D-OR) proposed undoing this deal by submitting an amendment that removed the 2 percent cap and made the program permanent. Progressives voted "no," but the amendment was adopted 250-175. WAR & PEACE— Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
HR 4954. Prescription Drug Coverage/Final Passage of Bill to Offer Seniors' a Prescription Drug Benefit Through
Unregulated Private Insurance Plans Rather than Medicare.
As the costs of prescription drugs increased beyond the power of many seniors to pay for them, both parties explored ways to help seniors pay for the drugs through existing Medicare coverage. The Republican plan relied heavily on private insurance companies to provide the coverage, and included a $33 monthly premium and a $250 annual deductible. Patients in the plan would be required to pay 20 percent of costs from $250 to $1,000, 50 percent of the costs from $1,000 to $2,000, and all costs from $2,000 to $3,700. All costs above $3,700 would be covered. Progressives did not support this Republican proposal because of its gaps in coverage and because it did not guarantee that insurance companies would step up to provide the service. They were joined by all but eight Democrats in opposing the bill, but it still passed 221-208. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
HR 4954. Prescription Drug Coverage/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Offer Seniors' a Prescription Drug
Benefit Through Unregulated Private Insurance Plans Rather than Medicare.
Seniors had been asking for several years for a Medicare prescription drug plan that would cover sky-rocketing drug costs. House Republicans proposed a plan administered by Medicare but provided by private insurance companies. The plan had a monthly premium of $33 and an annual deductible of $250. Patients were responsible for 20 percent of costs between $250 and $1,000, 50 percent of costs between $1,000 and $2,000, and all costs between $2,000 and $3,700. The insurance company paid for everything above $3,700. Progressives opposed this plan because it had so many gaps in coverage and because it provided no guarantee that insurance companies would step forward to participate. They supported a Democratic alternative that reduced the premium to $25 per month and required patients to pay 20 percent of costs below $2,000. All costs above $2,000 would be completely covered. This plan was offered by Gephardt (D-MO) as a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the Republican version be replaced with the Democratic version. Progressives voted "yes" on this motion to recommit, but the motion was rejected 204-223. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
HR 4954. Prescription Drug Coverage/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Offer Seniors' a Prescription Drug Benefit
Through Unregulated Private Insurance Plans Rather than Medicare.
The plan that House Republicans offered to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors relied heavily on private insurance companies. Medicare recipients would pay $33 a month to receive private coverage with a $250 annual deductible. Patients would pay 20 percent of costs between $250 and $1,000, 50 percent of costs between $1,000 and $2,000, and all costs between $2,000 and $3,700. All costs above $3,700 would be paid for in full. Progressives disliked this plan because of the gaps in coverage and because there was no guarantee the private sector would provide the coverage to all seniors who wanted it. Because they opposed the bill, they also opposed the bill's "rule": the set of instructions outlining the procedures for debate. If a bill's rule is voted down, the bill itself cannot be considered. Progressives were joined in opposition by all Democrats, but that was not enough to kill the rule. It passed 218-213. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Insurance Industry CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Pharmaceutical Industry HEALTH CARE— Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Final Passage of a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle Future
Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.
Progressives and Democrats in general had long claimed that the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 had contributed directly to the shift from surpluses in the federal budget to large deficits. These deficits began pushing the overall federal debt up against its legal limit. Raising this limit was a matter of voting to increase it, and without the increase the government risked going into default. Toward that end, the Republican leadership proposed a bill that increased the debt limit by $450 billion. But Progressives, Democrats generally, and even a small handful of disgruntled Republicans disapproved of raising this limit. They felt increasing it simply ignored a pressing issue, and that a larger debate about the priorities of government needed to be engaged. They voted against raising the debt limit, but the Republicans managed to pass the increase without a single vote to spare, 215- 214. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle
Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.
President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut from 2003 was a major factor behind the growing federal deficits in 2002. The deficits had become large enough that the federal debt was pressing up against its established limit. Beyond that limit, the federal government would go into default. Republicans and Democrats both favored increasing the limit. They disagreed over whether the limit should be increased without any attempt to consider other options. Republicans had no intention of reconsidering the tax cut. They proposed a bill that would increase the debt limit by $450 billion-enough to keep the government from defaulting on its debt until well into 2003. Progressives and Democrats in general favored a smaller increase that would keep the government solvent while they examined the options in a bipartisan budget summit. They supported a Moore (D-KS) motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the debt limit increase be reduced to $150 billion. Progressives and all but three of their fellow Democrats voted for this motion, but it was rejected 207-222. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit-Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle
Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.
President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut from 2001 had arguably contributed to rapidly growing deficits in the federal budget. The debt had increased as a result, and threatened to surpass the established debt limit. If the government was to avoid entering default, this debt limit had to be increased. Progressives and Democrats in general supported increasing the limit, but only after addressing the tax cut as a cause of the budget problems. Republican deficit hawks were also wary of increasing the debt limit, so the Republican leadership knew that a vote on raising the limit was going to be difficult to win. House procedures complicated matters further. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill-commonly referred to as the bill's "rule"-must usually be passed before the bill can be considered. Opponents of a bill will typically oppose the rule as a way to kill the bill itself. Fearing rebellion on the rule for the debt limit bill, the Republican leadership turned to an unusual technique: they attached the debt limit rule to the rule for a popular bill that authorized military programs. Though many Progressives favored the military bill, they opposed the debt limit bill even more. As a result, they voted "no" on the resolution that combined the rules for both bills. But the coupling did what it was intended to do: it encouraged a large number of Democrats to support the rule. The combined rule passed 269-160. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Vote to Combine Unpopular Rule on Debt Limit Increase with Rule on Defense
Authorization to Insure Passage of Debt Limit Increase.
The president's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 had contributed to a large and growing budget deficit. As the debt increased, Congress needed to raise the debt limit or risk placing the government in default on its loans. Republicans wrote a bill that increased the debt limit by $450 billion, but Progressives and Democrats in general wanted to have a larger debate about budget priorities before they agreed to any long-term increase in the limit. Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to circumvent this debate. In the House, most bills are proposed with a "rule": a set of instructions for debate on the measure that must be passed before the bill itself can be considered. Rather than propose a rule for the debt limit bill by itself, Republicans proposed amending the rule for an unrelated bill. Because the unrelated bill-authorizing defense programs-was popular, the rule for that bill was likely to pass even with the rule for the debt limit attached. Progressives voted against amending the defense authorization rule with the debt limit rule because they did not want to make it easier for Republicans to pass the latter by coupling it with the former. They voted "no" but the amendment passed anyway, 219-211. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle
Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.
In large part because of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, the federal budget faced increasing deficits in the years ahead. These deficits would increase the public debt beyond the amount specifically authorized by Congress. Exceeding this amount would either put the government in default on its debt or require a partial shutdown of government services. Republicans-who had come to support tax cuts more than a balanced budget-proposed a bill in the House that would increase the debt limit by $450 billion. This promised them enough room to avoid worrying about the size of the debt for years to come. Progressives opposed this increase because they wanted to force Republicans to address the consequences of their tax cuts. In the House, most legislation requires a separate "rule" that establishes the procedural outlines of debate on a bill. The Republican leadership knew that raising the debt limit was unpopular, so they introduced the rule on the debt limit bill as an amendment to a rule for another bill-authorization of the defense department. The defense bill was almost uniformly popular, so this move increased the chances that the debt limit rule would be passed and the debt limit bill itself could be considered. A previous question motion was raised on this amendment-a way of cutting off debate and bringing it to a vote. Progressives voted "no" because they opposed the debt limit increase, opposed its rule, and opposed attaching that rule to the rule for the defense authorization. Even so, the motion passed 221-210, and the amendment to the rule was brought to a vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
HR 5010. Defense Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Revoke Funding to the Missile Defense Program.
President Bush sought to deploy a missile defense system as an alternative to arms control treaties, which he believed did not work. Progressives, on the other hand, felt the missile defense system was expensive and fraught with technical problems, and that even a functional system would fail to protect the country against the most serious threats it currently faced. As proposed by House Republicans, the spending bill for the Defense Department in 2003 included money to deploy a preliminary missile defense system in Alaska. Tierney (D-MA) proposed an amendment that removed this spending from the bill. Progressives supported this amendment because they opposed the missile defense system. However, the amendment was rejected 112-314. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
HR 3009. "Fast Track" Trade Bill/Vote to Allow House Participation In Drafting International Trade Agreements Which
Subvert Worker and Environmental Protections.
One of the administration's top priorities for 2002 was passage of "fast track" authority. Fast track would give the president the power to submit fullynegotiated trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote: no changes would be permitted. Progressives saw fast track as a way for the president to push through liberalized trade agreements that had sometimes dire consequences for American workers and the environment. The Senate had already passed fast track, along with provisions to help workers dislocated by trade agreements. House Republicans wanted to give their representatives power to discuss fast track in negotiations with the Senate on drafting a final bill. They submitted to a vote a resolution that did just that, along with allowing the same negotiators to discuss the dislocated worker provisions in the Senate bill. Progressives did not want to pass fast track, so they did not want to give House negotiators the power to talk about the idea. Together with 14 Republicans and virtually all Democrats, they almost carried the day: the resolution passed by only a single vote, 216-215. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements ENVIRONMENT— Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Final Passage of a Bill to Create a Complex Set of Tax Incentives for Pension
Contributions that Fails to Address Issues of Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.
Throughout 2002, House Republicans sought to make permanent the temporary provisions of Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut of 2001. The provisions generally expired in 2010 under the original law. This particular bill made permanent a series of tax incentives to encourage participation in pensions and retirement plans. The incentives increased contribution limits to individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) pension plans, and allowed additional "catch-up" payments to IRAs for workers 50 and older. Progressives opposed these tax breaks because they did not address issues of corporate corruption, and because they were complicated enough in their details that only the wealthiest Americans would be likely to take advantage of them. Progressives voted no, but the tax breaks passed by a wide margin, 308-70. The bill faced an uncertain future in the Democratic-controlled Senate. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Create a Complex Set of Tax Incentives for
Pension Contributions that Fails to Address Issues of Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.
House Republicans were determined in 2002 to make permanent as much of Bush's tax cuts of 2001 as possible. Most of them had been temporary, with expiration around 2010. One of the provisions they sought to lock in place was a series of incentives to encourage participation in pensions and retirement plans. Progressives saw Republican attempts to extend these pension tax breaks as a perfect opportunity to push corporate reforms in light of the scandals at Enron and other companies. This vote was a motion to recommit, or send back, the bill to the committee that wrote it with specific instructions that language prohibiting "corporate inversion" be added to the bill. Corporate inversion was the practice of escaping taxes by inverting a corporation's structure so that a subsidiary located in a tax-free country becomes the parent company. The motion, supported by Progressives, was defeated, 186-192. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Vote on Democratic Version of Bill to Install Safeguards Against Corporate Corruption
Involving Employee Pension Accounts.
Most of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 had been temporary, and were scheduled to expire by around 2010. Republicans in the House worked throughout 2002 to make permanent as many of these cuts as possible. Among the tax cuts they wanted to make permanent were incentives to encourage participation in pensions and retirement plans. Progressives felt that reconsideration of these incentives, combined with the scandals of Enron and other corporations, provided the perfect opportunity to reign in corporate excesses. They offered an amendment to the tax cut extension that would have required executives to pay capital gains on stock options if their companies relocated overseas, would have extended an excise tax on large severance packages, and would have taxed deferred-compensation plans that have been used to avoid bankruptcy restrictions. This amendment was rejected, 182-204. FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Create a Complex Set of Tax Incentives for
Pension Contributions that Fails to Address Issues of Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.
Throughout 2002, Republicans made a concerted attempt to make permanent the various temporary provisions in the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001. One such attempt concerned the tax breaks to encourage more pension and retirement contributions. Progressives opposed these attempts, arguing that extending such incentives was useless if corporate corruption was not addressed first, because executives could always destroy any retirement program through their own misbehavior. Moreover, there were concerns that the pension tax breaks under consideration were technically complex enough that only the wealthy would truly take advantage of them. In the House, most bills debated on the floor come with a set of rules for debate that are passed separately from the bill itself. If the rule fails, the bill effectively fails as well. Progressives attempted to kill the pension tax break by voting down its corresponding rule, but they were strongly outnumbered, 344-52. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
HR 1979. Private Airport Control Towers/Final Passage of a Bill to Provide a Retroactive Public Subsidy to Private
Companies That Build Air Traffic Control Towers.
House Republicans wanted to reimburse airports for the construction and maintenance costs of privately-run control towers, and to pull money from the federal Airport Improvement Program to do it. Progressives supported this idea in principle, but they disagreed with a provision in the law that reimbursed airports for these costs even if they had constructed their control towers before 1996. They felt this amounted to a handout to private companies running these control towers. Though Progressives voted against it, the bill passed 284-143. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Airports |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
HR 1979. Private Airport Control Towers/Vote to Revoke a Retroactive Public Subsidy to Small Airports that Used
Private Companies to Construct Air Traffic Control Towers.
Republicans in the House sought to use funds from the federal Airport Improvement Program to pay for the construction and maintenance costs of privately-run control towers. A provision in this bill allowed small airports to use these funds to reimburse themselves for the costs of towers constructed before 1996. Seeing this as an unnecessary handout to such airports, Progressives opposed this provision. With Progressive support, Oberstar (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the bill that would remove the provision. This vote was on Oberstar's amendment, so a yes vote was a vote against the small airport reimbursement and for the Progressive position. The amendment was rejected, 202-223. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Airports |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
HR 3295. Election Reform/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Stringent Language During Conference Committee
to Insure the Future Protection of Voting Rights.
After the complications of the 2000 presidential vote, Congress struggled to put together an election reform bill to ensure such problems never happened again. As the House version of the bill neared passage, members looked ahead to the negotiations with the Senate-known as the "conference committee"-necessary to produce a final bill. Progressives were concerned that the Senate would try to change the House version in two ways: first, they would try to weaken provisions in the House bill requiring states to meet federal elections standards by November 2004; second, they would try to maintain a Senate provision protecting states receiving funds under the bill from federal prosecution until 2010. Hastings (D-FL) made a motion to require conference committee members from the House to thwart both these Senate changes. Progressives voted for this motion, but it failed nonetheless, 206-210. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
HR 4019. Tax Cut for Married Couples/Final Passage of Bill to Extend Tax Breaks During a Period of Financial
Uncertainty.
Under Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut from 2001, married couples had received certain tax breaks. These breaks included an increase in their standard deduction, a doubling of the portion of their income subject to the 15 percent rate, and an increase in the maximum income allowed in order to qualify for the earned income tax credit. The breaks were phased in over time, but ended after 2010. Republicans sought to extend them past this end date. Progressives felt this would only jeopardize the solvency of other government programs at a time when the war on terrorism and the state of the economy had already created an uncertain fiscal situation. This vote was for final passage of the tax break extensions. With Progressives voting "no," the measure passed, 271-142. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
HR 4019. Tax Cut for Married Couples/Vote to Insure that the Extension of Tax Breaks for Married Couples Does Not
Reduce Funds for Social Security.
Married couples had received certain tax breaks in Bush's 2001 tax cut: an increase in the standard deduction, a doubling of the portion of their income subject to the 15 percent tax rate, and an increase in the maximum income permissible under the earned income tax credit. These provisions would phase in by 2008 or 2009, but then cease by 2010-Republicans proposed extending them to 2012, at a cost of $41.9 billion. Progressives felt the government was in no fiscal position to provide more tax cuts, and that the marriage breaks Republicans proposed might threaten other programs like Social Security. To address this issue, they proposed an alternative: an extension of the tax breaks, but only if the Office of Management and Budget certified that none of the money necessary to fund the cuts would come from the Social Security trust fund. Progressives voted for this substitute proposal, but it was rejected, 198-213. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
H J Res 96. Constitutional Amendment to Limit Taxes/Final Passage of a Bill Designed to Increase the Difficulty of
Raising Taxes.
This was the seventh time in as many years that the Republicans in the House proposed a constitutional amendment to make it more difficult to pass tax increases. The measure would change the required vote for a tax increase from a simple majority to two-thirds of each body. Progressives complained that this would leave future Congresses no choice but to cut government programs, because such cuts would still require only a simple majority to pass. A constitutional amendment must receive a twothirds vote in each house of Congress to pass. Though a majority of the House favored this constitutional amendment, 227- 178, this vote was still 43 short of the necessary two-thirds. The vote therefore failed, and the amendment was shelved for another year. FAIR TAXATION— Maintaining Majority Rule (Not 2/3) for Raising Taxes MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
HR 4775. Fiscal 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Require Maximum Funding for Homeland Security and
Military Action in Afghanistan.
With more spending needed to pay for the war in Afghanistan and for added homeland security, the House and Senate both passed appropriations bills to supplement the original appropriations passed the previous year. Their versions differed: House Republicans favored $1.8 billion more for the military, and Senate Democrats $8.3 billion more for homeland defense. David Obey (D-WI) suggested that the final bill should use the higher of the House and Senate figures for any money related to defense or homeland security, and should not include any money unrelated to those two efforts. Obey proposed that the House instruct its representatives at the House-Senate negotiations to demand these spending restrictions. Progressives supported this idea, because they felt the president's spending restrictions were too draconian and threatened homeland security. Republicans balked, and the motion to issue these instructions went down to defeat, 181-235. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Final Passage of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers
and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.
Repeal of the estate tax had been part of the $1.35 trillion Bush tax cut package of 2001. Because an estate originally had to be worth more than $675,000 to qualify for the tax-which excluded all but two percent of inheritances-repealing it mostly benefited those at the very top of the income scale. But the repeal had been temporary-after 2010 the tax returned in close to its previous form. Republicans were determined to change this fact by repealing the tax permanently, and they proposed legislation in the House to do just that. Progressives opposed permanent repeal because it benefited only the very rich and deprived the federal treasury of a substantial amount of money. However, after a number of procedural attempts to kill or weaken the bill establishing permanent repeal, many Democrats voted with Republicans on final passage. Despite the opposition of Progressives, the bill passed 256-171. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax-Motion to Recommit. The president's 2001 tax cut temporarily repealed the estate tax, which affected the largest two percent of private inheritances. The 2001 law increased the $675,000 cutoff for the tax until the tax disappeared entirely in 2010. What bothered Republicans was that this repeal itself disappeared in 2011, at which point the tax would return with a cutoff of $1 million. To correct this perceived deficiency, they proposed a bill in the House that would make the repeal permanent. Progressives opposed this move because the tax affected only the very richest Americans and repealing it deprived the government of a substantial source of revenue. Stenholm (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) this bill to its committee with instructions that it be changed to forbid the permanent repeal if such a repeal would undermine the Social Security program. Progressives favored this change because they worried the tax repeal would affect the ability of Social Security to meet its obligations. They voted for Stenholm's motion, but their support was not enough. The motion was rejected 205-223. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Vote on Democratic Version of Estate Tax Reform Which Maintained the Tax But
Capped Its Highest Rate and Reduced Its Incidence on Taxpayers.
Prior to the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, the federal government imposed a tax on the largest private inheritances-those worth more than $675,000. The 2001 tax cut gradually increased this cutoff until the tax disappeared entirely in 2010. But after 2010, the tax was set to return to something approximating its original form. Republicans saw this as a deficiency, so they proposed a bill in the House to make the repeal permanent. Progressives opposed this bill because they felt the repeal benefited only the very wealthiest Americans while sapping the U.S. Treasury of a substantial amount of money. As a compromise, they supported a substitute version proposed by Pomeroy (D-ND). Pomeroy's version would maintain the tax but permanently increase the cutoff to $3 million and cap the size of the tax at 50 percent (it also would have replaced a five percent surtax on estates valued at over $10 million). Progressives voted for this substitute, but it was rejected 197-231. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy
Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.
The $1.3 trillion package of tax cuts pushed through by President Bush in 2001 included temporary repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax affected only the largest two percent of inheritances; the repeal gradually shrank that number until the tax itself disappeared in 2010. But after 2010 the tax was scheduled to return to something close to its original form. Republicans wanted the tax eliminated permanently, and they proposed a bill that would do just that. Progressives opposed this bill: they noted that the tax affected only the richest Americans but provided a substantial portion of the money for the treasury. In the House, most bills come with a "rule": a separate resolution that establishes the rules for debate on the bill and that must be voted on first before the bill itself can be considered. Progressives opposed the rule that accompanied the estate tax repeal because they opposed the repeal itself. Though they were joined in this position by all but ten Democrats, no Republicans voted against the rule. It passed 227-195. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets
Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.
Repeal of the estate tax was part of the Bush administration's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. The tax had applied only to inheritances greater than $675,000- the wealthiest two percent of estates-but the 2001 changes increased this number gradually until the tax disappeared entirely in 2010. After that, the tax returned in full force. Republicans were determined to make the repeal permanent, and they proposed legislation to that effect in the House. Progressives disagreed with permanent or even temporary repeal of the estate tax, which they noted affects only the very wealthiest Americans but provides a substantial portion of the federal government's revenues. Most bills in the House come with a set of rules for debate that must be passed separately before debate on the bill itself can begin. Progressives opposed this "rule" for the estate tax because they opposed the bill itself. When Hastings (R-WA) moved to order the previous question-a way of cutting off debate and bringing the rule to a vote-Progressives voted "no" because they did not want the process to move forward at all. However, they were outvoted, and the motion passed 223-201. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
Procedural Motion/Vote to Table (Kill) a Requirement that the President Obtain Congressional Approval Before
Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
President Bush had decided in December to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. He did not believe in treaties generally and he felt the ABM Treaty in particular prevented the United States from developing a missile defense system. Progressives disagreed with this move because they believed the treaty had been an effective means of slowing the arms race, and because they felt a missile defense system was a technical impossibility. Kucinich (D-OH) wanted to require the president to obtain congressional approval before withdrawing from the treaty, but he could not get a resolution to that effect past the Republican leadership. He tried to claim privilege for his resolution under the rules of the House, but the chair ruled against him. He then appealed this ruling, but Hyde (R-IL) moved to table (kill) this appeal. Progressives favored Kucinich's resolution because they opposed Bush's approach to arms control and at least wanted to have a vote on the matter. As a result, they also disagreed with the ruling of the chair that Kucinich's resolution did not deserve privilege, agreed with Kucinich's appeal of that ruling, and opposed Hyde's attempt to table the appeal. They voted "no" on the motion to table, but it passed 254-169. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law WAR & PEACE— Arms Controls Treaties WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
HR 4664. Reauthorizing the National Science Foundation/Vote to Fund Biosafety Research into Genetically-Modified
Organisms.
Woolsey (D-CA) proposed this amendment to the bill reauthorizing the National Science Foundation-a government agency that provided support for scientific research across the country. Woolsey's amendment added funding for a "Biosafety Research" program that would investigate the impact of new organisms on biological systems. "New organisms" could be existing organisms introduced to a new environment, or wholly new organisms created through breeding or genetic manipulation. Progressives supported the amendment because they worried about the impact of such organisms on both humans and the world's ecosystems. However, their position was outvoted by a combination of several Democrats and all but one Republican. The amendment was rejected 165-259. ENVIRONMENT— Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Pharmaceutical Industry WAR & PEACE— Control of Genetically Modified Organisms |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Final Passage of a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay
Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.
Most in Congress agreed that the government needed additional funding in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Republicans used this consensus to their advantage, by attaching some controversial provisions to the popular legislation in the hope that they would pass by association alone. Progressives disliked two of these provisions in particular. The first was a cap on the upcoming year's spending that they felt was unrealistically low. The second was language that prevented a vote on raising the country's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to increase or the government would go into default, but Progressives wanted a vote so they could make the argument that the increase was only necessary as a consequence of the Bush administration's enormous tax cuts. They voted "no" on the supplemental appropriations bill for these two reasons and were joined by most Democrats, who were similarly angered at the Republicans' tactics. But the Republicans held firm and a number of Democrats felt compelled to vote for the otherwise popular measure. The bill passed 280-138. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal
Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.
In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a broad agreement developed in Congress that more spending was needed to cope with the aftermath. Republicans used this consensus to their advantage, by attaching some controversial provisions to the supplemental appropriations bill that provided the extra funding. Two of these provisions were particularly galling to Progressives: a cap on spending for the upcoming year's appropriations that Progressives felt was far too low; and language that prevented a vote on raising the country's debt ceiling, a change everyone agreed was necessary but that Progressives wanted vote on to highlight the debt problem as a consequence of the Bush administration's tax cuts. Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) this bill to its committee to remove the debt ceiling language and allow an up-or-down vote. Progressives voted "yes" on this motion, but it did not pass. The vote was 201-215. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal
Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.
The Republican leadership offered a spending bill to address additional funding needs following the September 11th terrorist attacks, and its core provisionsadditional spending for the military, homeland security, and New York City-received broad support. But the Republican leadership also attached controversial amendments to the bill in the hope that they would ride through on the bill's popularity. Two in particular angered Progressives: a cap on spending for 2003 that Progressives found unrealistically low; and language that prevented a vote on increasing the country's debt ceiling, something everyone knew had to be done but that Progressives wanted to bring to a vote to call attention to what they felt were the consequences of the Bush tax cuts. To fight the bill, Progressives joined Obey (D-WI) in raising countless dilatory motions and amendments. This approach was so successful that Republicans had been forced to pull the bill from the floor and start from scratch. In the House, most bills come with a "rule" that establishes the ground rules for debate and must be passed before the bill itself can be considered. The first rule Republicans had proposed for debate gave Democrats a great deal of freedom to bring amendments and other motions to a vote. After suffering at the hands of dilatory tactics by Progressives and Democrats in general, this second rule was much more restrictive: it prohibited any amendments and limited total debate to just one hour. Progressives knew their one piece of leverage would disappear under this second rule, so they voted against it. However, Republicans closed ranks and the rule passed, 213-201. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Adjourn Congressional Session to Allow Republicans to Devise
New Strategy to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.
After the September 11th attacks, a broad consensus developed in Congress to increase spending for military and homeland security needs, and to provide assistance to New York City. The vehicle for this extra spending was a supplemental appropriations bill. The Republican leadership decided to use the opportunity to push through more contentious items by attaching them to this popular spending package. Two in particular were noxious to Progressives. One established a target spending figure for the upcoming year's appropriations that Progressives found too low to meet the country's needs. The other prevented a vote on raising the country's debt limit; Progressives believed it was the president's tax cuts that had required raising the debt limit, and they wanted to call attention to this fact by holding a vote on the issue. Progressives joined Obey (D-WI) in attacking the Republican spending plan through a series of dilatory parliamentary procedures. As it became clear to the Republican leadership that Obey's tactics would grind the process to a halt, they decided to withdraw the spending plan from the floor and regroup. This motion to adjourn allowed them to pull the bill, and gave them a few hours to devise a new plan of attack. Because Progressives felt they were getting the upper hand, they did not want to give the Republicans this opportunity to devise a new strategy. They voted "no" on the motion, but it passed, 211-189. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Colombian Counternarcotics Funding for Use in Colombia's
Civil War.
The September 11th terrorist attacks left most on Capitol Hill wanting more spending on the military and homeland security. The House Republican leadership proposed a supplemental appropriations bill that provided this spending along with aid to New York City. But it also included a number of provisions that Progressives disliked. Two in particular angered them. One was a limit on spending for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives felt was unrealistically low. The second was language that prevented a vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed that the ceiling had to be raised or the government would become insolvent. But Progressives wanted a vote on the matter so they could argue that the Bush tax cuts had made the increase necessary. Obey (D-WI) tried to force the Republican leadership to relent on this issue by bringing countless procedural motions and minor amendments to a vote. The amendment at issue here was in the spirit of that effort, though it was proposed by McGovern (D-MA) and not Obey. The amendment removed language from the supplemental appropriations bill that permitted using Colombian counternarcotics funds for Colombian counterterrorism. In Colombia, "counterterrorist" meant "counterinsurgent," so Progressives feared the amendment pushed the United States deeper into Colombia's 40-year-old civil war. However, though Progressives agreed with the substance of this amendment, they were even more supportive of the vote as part of a larger effort to slow the legislative process to a virtual stop. The longer the legislative process could be stalled, the more likely it was that Republicans would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. The amendment failed 192-225. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Human Rights Abuses MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function WAR & PEACE— Military Aid to Colombia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Curb President's Discretion in Funding the National Guard.
In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, there was a broad consensus on Capitol Hill that more spending was needed, particularly on homeland security, the military, and aid to New York City. The Republican leadership provided that extra spending in a supplemental appropriations bill, but they used the popularity of this bill to push through more contentious provisions. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first set a spending limit for upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives considered far too low to meet the government's needs. The second prevented a vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling needed to be raised to keep the government solvent; Progressives wanted a vote on the matter so they could make the case that the Bush tax cuts had made the increase necessary. Obey (D-WI) tried to force the Republicans to back track on these two provisions by bringing countless procedural motions and minor amendments to a vote. The amendment at issue here reduced the portion of funds for the National Guard that were subject to emergency designation. Emergency status gave the president the discretion not to spend the money. Progressives supported this amendment because they wanted better funding for homeland security and did not want to leave the decision entirely up to President Bush, but they backed the amendment mostly because they supported Obey's efforts to gum up the works. The longer the legislative process could be stalled, the more likely it was that Republicans would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. The amendment was rejected 197-216. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Curbing Presidential Power MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Curb President's Discretion in Determining the Salaries of FBI
Employees.
The September 11th attacks created a new demand in Congress for spending on the military and homeland security. The Republican leadership responded with a supplemental appropriations bill that provided extra funding for these areas in addition to assistance to New York City. But the leadership also saw the opportunity to use the popular bill to force through more controversial measures. They attached two items in particular that angered Progressives. The first capped spending for the upcoming 2003 appropriations at a level Progressives considered far too low. The second prevented a vote on raising the government's debt ceiling, something everyone agreed needed to be done: Progressives wanted a vote so they could highlight their belief that raising the ceiling was only necessary because of Bush tax cuts. To fight this bill, Obey (D-WI) prepared hundreds of procedural motions and minor amendments to slow down the process and force Republicans to relent on the two controversial provisions. The amendment at issue here struck language that established an emergency designation for extra money allocated to cover FBI salaries and expenses. With an emergency designation, this money would be spent only at the president's discretion. Obey suggested that the money needed to be spent regardless of whether the president chose to spend it. To Progressives, the substance of the amendment-which they favored as a way to ensure more spending for homeland security-was less important than the fact that it gummed up the process. The longer the legislative process could be stalled, the more likely it was that Republicans would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. They voted "yes" for this reason. The amendment was rejected 199-213. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Funding for Homeland Security MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider
Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.
In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress was eager to increase funding for items such as the military and homeland security. House Republicans proposed such increases in a supplemental appropriations bill, but they used the popularity of the bill to push through a number of unrelated provisions. Two in particular raised the hackles of Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the motion was 144-252. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Remove Debt Limit Increase from Bill to Force
Republican Leaders to Consider Politically-Unpopular Measure Separately.
Gephardt (D-MO) had attempted to remove this debt ceiling language from the bill through an amendment that struck the language from the bill. Progressives favored this amendment because they wanted a chance to confront Republicans about the costs of their tax cuts. In a countermove, Young (R-FL) made a point of order against Gephardt's amendment, claiming that Gephardt would be striking a previously adopted amendment, which is forbidden by House rules. The chair ruled in Young's favor, but Gephardt appealed the ruling. This vote was on the question of whether the chair's ruling would be sustained. Progressives voted "no" because they favored Gephardt's amendment and opposed Young's point of order against it, so they also disagreed with the ruling of the chair and did not want it sustained. Still, they were in the minority: the ruling was upheld 215-203, and Gephardt's amendment was rejected. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider
Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress debated increasing spending by passing a supplemental appropriations bill. The main text of the bill was popular, but House Republicans took advantage of this popularity to attach a number of unrelated and more contentious provisions. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the motion was 99-289. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider
Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.
The September 11th terrorist attacks left the federal government in need of additional spending, which Congress debated in the form of a supplemental appropriations bill. The main text of the bill was broadly popular, but House Republicans decided to use this popularity to pass a number of unrelated provisions, which they attached to the larger bill. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the motion was 134-250. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider
Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.
The government needed extra spending after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, which Congress debated in the form of a supplemental appropriations bill. The main text of the bill allocated funding mostly to the military, homeland security, and New York City, and was broadly popular. But House Republicans attached a number of unrelated provisions that they hoped would pass on the back of the larger bill's popularity alone. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay against the supplemental appropriations bill in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to adjourn was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the measure was 94-300. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal
Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.
The September 11th terrorist attacks left the government needing additional money to combat terrorism and pay for the fallout of the disaster. The House Republican leadership offered a supplemental appropriations bill that provided extra funds for the military, homeland security, and aid to New York. The package was broadly popular, so the Republican leadership added on several highly contentious provisions and then dared opponents of those provisions to vote against the larger package. To Progressives and Democrats in general, the most offensive of these provisions were tight spending caps on 2003 appropriations and language preventing an up-or-down vote on a much-needed increase in the government's debt ceiling. The spending totals were considered too low, even by Republicans on the Appropriations Committee. The debt ceiling provision saved Republicans from a debate on the reasons for the growing deficit, which Progressives pinned to the administration's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001. In the House, most bills come with a "rule" that establishes the boundaries of debate. Ordinarily, opponents of a bill will also vote against the rule as a way of killing the bill itself. In this case, the rule also included the extra provisions that Progressives found so distasteful, so they were especially opposed to passing it. However, the rule claimed all but three Republicans, and passed 216-209. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
HR 3129. Reauthorizing the Customs Service/Final Passage of a Bill Which Exempted Customs Agents from Lawsuits for
Wrongful Searches.
The House Republican bill to reauthorize the Customs Service included two provisions Progressives felt abridged the civil rights of ordinary Americans. The first made Customs agents immune from lawsuits for wrongful searches as long as they followed departmental procedure when conducting the search. The second allowed Customs agents to search unsealed outbound international mail. A Waters (DCA) amendment to remove these provisions had earlier been rejected (see vote 192), and Progressives could not support a reauthorization bill that included the two measures. Progressives voted against final passage of the bill. However, it passed anyway, and by a large margin 327-101. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
HR 3129. Reauthorizing the Customs Service/Vote to Hold Customs Agents Liable for Wrongful Searches.
Republicans in the House proposed a bill to reauthorize the Customs Service that made changes Progressives could not support. The bill protected Customs agents from lawsuits for wrongful searches so long as the search followed departmental procedure. The bill also allowed Customs agents to search unsealed outbound international mail. Progressives felt both provisions violated the civil rights of ordinary Americans: the second did so quite directly, while the first encouraged violations of civil rights because victims would have no recourse when mistreated. Waters (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the bill that would strike these two provisions. Progressives voted for this amendment, but it was rejected 197-231. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Final Passage of a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless
Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.
Republicans had pushed through a welfare reform bill in 1996 that fundamentally changed the program from an entitlement with few requirements to a temporary 2-year assistance program with many strings attached. This law was due to be renewed, and Republicans wanted to take that opportunity to further tighten the restrictions. They sought to increase the work requirement from 30 to 40 hours per week, and to require states to find jobs for 70 percent of their recipients, up from 50 in the existing law. The bill also added some money for child care and programs to promote marriage. Progressives opposed most everything in the bill. They felt there was no need to tighten restrictions on a law they believed was draconian enough in the first place, and they also thought the program needed more funding for child care and less for marriage promotion. All but 14 Democrats joined them in opposition, but their "no" votes were not enough to pull the bill down. The reauthorization passed, 229- 197. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor
or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.
The welfare reform law of 1996 had changed welfare from an entitlement with few restrictions to a temporary assistance program with a number of restrictions. With this bill due for renewal, Republicans decided to take the opportunity to tighten the restrictions further still. Their bill increased the number of hours a recipient was required to work from 30 to 40 per week, and they increased the percentage of recipients a state was required to put to work from 50 to 70. Progressives disagreed with the changes because they felt the existing law was hard enough on welfare recipients, especially in a weak economy. They also felt the Republican bill did not provide enough funding for child care. They backed a Maloney (D-CT) motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the funding for child care be increased. Republicans, however, did not agree that the program was underfunded. On a strict party-line vote, Maloney's motion to recommit was rejected 207-219, and the bill remained as it was. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on Democratic Version of Bill Designed to Ease Restrictions on Welfare Benefits.
One of the biggest Republican victories since taking over the House in 1995 was the welfare reform law of 1996. The law changed welfare from an entitlement to a twoyear temporary assistance program with strings attached. Republicans sought to use the first renewal of this law to tighten its restrictions still further. They wanted to increase the number of hours a recipient was required to work from 30 to 40 per week, and they wanted to increase the share of recipients a state was required to get into a job from 50 percent to 70 percent. Progressives disliked these changes, because they felt the provisions listed above from the original welfare reform law were too hard on welfare recipients in the first place. In their view, making the law more stringent would only worsen the situation, especially in the weak existing economy. They favored a substitute offered by Cardin (D-MD) that maintained the existing 30-hour-per-week requirement, increased child care funding more than in the Republican bill, tied federal funding for the states to inflation, provided assistance to legal immigrants, and allowed education and training programs to count toward a state's employment rate. Though all but ten Democrats supported this substitute, all but four Republicans voted against it. It was rejected 198-222. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS— General Education Funding |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or
Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.
In 1996, Republicans had successfully changed welfare from an entitlement to a two-year temporary assistance program that came with a number of strings attached. By 2002 the program needed to be renewed, and Republicans wanted to make the program's restrictions tighter. They sought to increase the work requirement for recipients from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week and to raise the percentage of recipients a state was required to put to work from 50 to 70. Progressives opposed these changes as unnecessarily harsh and unrealistic in a sour economic climate. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a "rule" that sets restrictions on the coming debate. This rule must be voted on separately before the bill itself can be considered. Progressives opposed the rule for the welfare bill because they opposed the bill itself, but their "no" votes were not enough to carry the day. The rule for the welfare bill passed, 214-205. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor
or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.
The welfare reform law that had passed in 1996 was due for renewal, and House Republicans were determined to use the opportunity to tighten the program's restrictions. In particular, they wanted to increase the number of hours per week a recipient was required to work from 30 to 40, and they wanted to require states to put 70 percent of their recipients to work-up from 50 percent in current law. To pass most important bills in the House, a separate motion must be passed that establishes the ground rules for debate. Usually referred to as the "rule," this separate motion is usually opposed by those opposing the bill itself. Progressives opposed the new welfare law-they felt the original law was unfair to recipients to begin with, so making the requirements more stringent would only make matters worse them-so they were against the bill's rule as well. In the midst of debate on the welfare bill's rule, Republicans moved to order the previous question, a way of ending debate and calling for a vote. Because Progressives opposed the bill itself and its rule, they also opposed holding a vote on either one. They voted "no" on the previous question motion, but it passed anyway, 213-204. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Override House Rules to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Further
Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.
Congress had passed major welfare reform in 1996 that changed the program from an entitlement to a program of temporary assistance. By 2002, the program needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans planned to use the opportunity to tighten the program's restrictions. Their welfare bill raised the work requirement for recipients from 30 to 40 hours per week, and it required states to get 70 percent of their recipients into a job, up from 50 percent in the 1996 bill. Progressives felt the existing 1996 changes were draconian enough, and opposed attaching any more strings to the money. As a result, they voted "no" on a special procedural vote that permitted the bill to be considered. In the House, important bills come with instructions on the conduct of debate-called simply the "rule"-that must be voted on separately before debate on the bill can begin. Progressives opposed the rule for the welfare bill because they opposed the bill itself. Complicating matters was the fact that the rule for the welfare bill was written and proposed on the same day, which according to House procedures meant it needed to pass by a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority. House Republicans had to pass another rule to waive this requirement. Because Progressives opposed the welfare bill and its rule, they also opposed this secondary rule that waived the two-thirds requirement and so made it easier to pass the welfare bill itself. However, this secondary rule was adopted on an almost perfect party-line vote, 219-200. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Children AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Less Affluent Women |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Final Passage of a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense Program
and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.
There were a number of controversial provisions in the military authorization bill that the president and congressional Republicans proposed for 2003. The bill allowed the military to study using small nuclear weapons for "conventional" warfare; it exempted military training exercises from certain environmental regulations; and it established the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed all three changes. They disagreed with using nuclear weapons for any purpose, let alone conventional war; they believed national security could be maintained without carving out a military exception to environmental laws; and they felt that a missile defense system was fraught with technical problems and unlikely to defend the country against its most serious threats even if it worked. But their position failed to attract even a majority of Democrats, and the military authorization bill passed by a wide margin, 359-58. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile
Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.
Every year, Congress must authorize the military programs it feels should receive funding. The military authorization bill that the president and his allies on Capitol Hill proposed for 2003 included a number of controversial provisions, including authorization for a missiledefense system. Progressives opposed such a system as expensive, unworkable, and likely to destabilize American foreign policy. Along these lines, Spratt (D-SC) moved to recommit (send back) the authorization bill to its committee with instructions that a ban on spending for nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors be added. Progressives-who opposed a missile defense system on general principle-were strongly behind the Spratt motion because they could see no need to implement nuclear weapons in this way. But all but two Republicans voted against Spratt's motion, so it was rejected 193- 223. WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Ban U.S. Funding to the International Criminal Court.
Every year, Congress must authorize the military programs that will be allowed to receive funding for the coming year. For the 2003 military authorization proposed by the Republican leadership, Paul (R-TX) proposed an amendment popular with conservatives: a ban on any funds that would support the International Criminal Court. Conservatives disliked the Court because they felt it would provide a forum for pursuing politically motivated trials against American soldiers. Progressives, on the other hand, felt the Court was more likely to empower the U.S. to bring war criminals to justice, and that abandoning the Court damaged U.S. credibility abroad. They voted "no" on Paul's amendment, but it passed nonetheless, 264-152. HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Support for Independent International Law |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Allow the U.S. Military to Engage in Domestic Border Security
Activities.
Congress is responsible for authorizing the programs in the federal government that can receive money every year, and the military is no exception to this process. Goode (I-VA, who has since changed to the Republican party) offered an amendment to the version of the 2003 military authorization that had been proposed by the Republicans. His amendment allowed the military to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service if either the attorney general (in the case of the former) or the secretary of the Treasury (in the case of the latter) asked for it. Progressives disliked this idea because they believed the military and the domestic police force should not mix. But their votes-and the votes of most other Democratswere not enough to stop the amendment. It was adopted 232-183. WAR & PEACE— Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Insure that Women Soldiers Have Access to Abortions When Stationed
Overseas.
Every year, Congress must authorize the wide range of military programs, making whatever changes they deem necessary. Sanchez (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the Republican version of this authorization that explicitly permitted abortions in U.S. military facilities overseas, so long as a doctor agreed to the procedure and the patient paid for it herself. Progressives supported this amendment as a sensible change that pertained to a constitutionally-protected activity. But most Republicans disliked the notion of abortions at all, let alone in U.S. military clinics, and they voted "no" on the measure. Their votes were enough to kill it: the amendment was rejected 202-215. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Procedural Vote Intended to Delay Consideration of a Bill to Authorize
Spending on a Missile Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental
Regulations.
Progressives were angered by a number of elements of the Republicans' military authorization bill. It permitted the testing of nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives disliked the bill because they opposed nuclear combat of any kind, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 168- 241, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was the last of many attempts that together had taken debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. Progressives could not brook the Republican version of the bill to authorize military programs for 2003. Several elements of the bill angered them: it allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave military training exercises an exemption from certain environmental laws; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were against all three: they opposed nuclear combat of any kind, they supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and they felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 154-249, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. Republicans included several provisions in the military authorization bill for 2003 that Progressives could not go along with. The bill allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were opposed to all three. They felt nuclear combat should be avoided at all costs, they saw no reason why national security and environmentalism should be at odds, and they felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 83-312, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. Republicans proposed a military authorization bill for 2003 that took several controversial positions Progressives strongly opposed. The bill allowed testing for the use of nuclear weapons in "conventional" war, while Progressives felt nuclear combat of any kind was anathema; the bill gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for training exercises, while Progressives believed environmental laws could be enforced without threatening national security; and the bill paved the way for a missile defense system. Joining Progressives in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 75-319, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. The military authorization bill congressional Republicans proposed made several changes that Progressives could not support. It permitted the testing of nuclear weapons for use in "conventional" war; it exempted military training exercises from certain environmental regulations; and it moved the country closer to a missile defense system. Progressives were against all three. They opposed nuclear combat of any kind, they saw no reason why national security and environmental protection needed to be conflicting goals, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 58-325, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. The military authorization bill as proposed by congressional Republicans earned the wrath of Progressives. It allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war, while Progressives opposed nuclear combat of any kind; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises, while Progressives felt environmental protection and national security were compatible goals; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system that Progressives deemed expensive, dangerous, and unworkable. Joining Progressives in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 56-339, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. Progressives found themselves deeply opposed to several elements of the Republican bill to authorize military programs for 2003. Republicans had used the bill to permit testing the use of nuclear weapons in "conventional" combat, to carve out an exception from certain environmental laws for military training exercises, and to start the development of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed using nuclear weapons for any purpose, they opposed special exemptions to environmental laws, and they saw a missile defense system as dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 55-336, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Eliminate Funding for a Missile Defense Program.
As proposed by the president and his allies on Capitol Hill, the bill to authorize military programs for 2003 included a number of controversial provisions. One of these provisions was a missile defense system that Progressives complained was expensive and unworkable, and which they noted required abandoning arms control treaties that had been carefully negotiated over the last several decades. To block this program, Tierney (D-MA) proposed an amendment that would forbid any funding for a space-based missile defense. Though he had support from Progressives for the amendment, Tierney could not muster a majority, and the amendment failed 159-253. WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. Progressive Democrats found it hard to accept some of the changes to the military included in the Republicans' authorization of defense programs for 2003. The $383.4 billion measure allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war, exempted military training exercises from certain environmental laws, and authorized the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were opposed to all three, because they were against nuclear combat of any kind, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 48-356, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. When congressional Republicans proposed a bill to authorize military programs for 2003, it came with some controversial provisions. The bill allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Because Progressives were opposed to nuclear warfare of any kind, opposed to what they saw as an expensive and unworkable missile defense system, and opposed to special exemptions from environmental laws, they were opposed to the whole bill as well. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 46-356, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Develop "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons.
The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress included a number of provisions in their defense authorization bill for 2003 that raised the ire of Progressives. Among those most opposed by Progressives were efforts to make it easier to develop and use "low-yield" (i.e., relatively small impact) nuclear weapons in "conventional" combat. By contrast, Weldon (R-PA) felt the authorization bill did not go far enough to allow these weapons: he proposed an amendment that explicitly allowed for such weapons to be developed. The Weldon amendment did bar actual construction of a "bunker buster" nuclear weapona missile designed to explode underground for the purpose of destroying an underground hideout-but that was not enough to satisfy Progressives. They felt the amendment encouraged a potentially destabilizing policy of nuclear combat, and they disagreed with the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose on principle. They voted "no" on Weldon's amendment, but it passed by a wide margin nonetheless, 362-53. WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Eliminate Funding for "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons.
As proposed by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress, the bill to authorize military programs for 2003 contained a number of controversial provisions. Among the most contentious was a series of measures to make it easier for the military to use nuclear weapons in "conventional" combat. One such use of nuclear weapons was as "bunker busters": missiles designed to penetrate the ground before exploding in order to destroy an underground military hideout. Progressives opposed the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose, but particularly in otherwise conventional warfare. Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment to the authorization bill that would forbid funding for studying or ever developing such a nuclear weapon. Progressives and virtually all Democrats voted for this amendment, but it was rejected anyway, 172-243. WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. The bill the Republicans proposed to authorize military programs for 2003 permitted the military to test using nuclear weapons in "conventional" war, exempted military training exercises from certain environmental regulations, and allowed the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed all three because they were against nuclear combat of any kind, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 51-360, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. The annual authorization of military programs is often a relatively non-partisan affair, but Republicans used the authorization bill to propose several controversial changes. The bill they developed allowed for the testing of nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were against all three. They opposed using nuclear weapons in any situation, let alone conventional war; they saw no threat to national security from environmental laws; and they felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 49-352, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion. The military authorization bill as proposed by congressional Republicans included a number of provisions that were anathema to Progressives. It allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were opposed to all three, because they were against the use of nuclear weapons, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 51-356, but victory was not the object: the purpose was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only the first of many attempts that would together take debate into the small hours of the morning. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense
Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.
In their package of military programs for 2003, the Republicans proposed several controversial items. The bill permitted the military to explore using small nuclear weapons in "conventional" warfare; it lifted certain environmental regulations for military training exercises; and it provided for the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed these changes. They opposed using nuclear weapons for any purpose, and they believed a missile defense system was a technical impossibility that would be unlikely to stop the most serious threats even if it worked. Progressives also fundamentally disagreed that the military needed an exemption from environmental regulations for the sake of national security. They therefore opposed the "rule" on the authorization bill: the set of instructions for debate that included the time each side would be given to speak and the number of amendments they would be allowed to offer. To kill the rule was to effectively vote down the bill itself. However, despite being joined in opposition by almost all Democrats, Progressive opposition was not enough to vote down the rule. It passed 216-200, and the stage was set for debate on the authorization bill itself. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile
Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.
The Republican proposal to authorize $383.4 billion in military programs for 2003 included a number of contentious provisions. The plan permitted the military to explore using small nuclear warheads in "conventional" warfare; it exempted military training exercises from some environmental regulations; and it authorized the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives felt it was unnecessary to lift environmental regulations for the sake of military preparedness. They also opposed using nuclear weapons for any purpose, and believed the missile defense system was ineffective and expensive. Because they opposed the bill itself, they also opposed its "rule": the set of instructions for debate that must be voted on separately in the House before a bill itself can be considered. In the midst of debating the rule for the defense authorization bill, Myrick (R-NC) moved to order the previous question, a way of ending debate and calling the rule to a vote. Because they opposed the bill and its rule, Progressives also opposed the motion for the previous question. Though they were joined by all other Democrats, their votes were not enough to kill the motion, which passed 215-202. ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation WAR & PEACE— Military Spending, General WAR & PEACE— Missile Defense Systems WAR & PEACE— Nuclear Weapons |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
H J Res 87. Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage/Final Passage of a Bill Requiring the Transport and Storage of Hazardous
Nuclear Waste in Nevada.
The federal government had long struggled to find a location for the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. Since 1987, the government had narrowed the list of possible storage sites to one: Yucca Mountain, a location 90 miles outside Las Vegas, Nevada. The Bush administration-strong supporters of nuclear power-decided that enough analysis had been done, and that it was time to formally establish the site as the nation's primary repository for nuclear waste. Progressives opposed this decision because they opposed nuclear power as unsafe, and because they worried that transporting the waste across the country risked catastrophic accident or attack. They voted "no" on the resolution to establish the waste site, but they were outvoted and the resolution passed by a wide margin, 306-117. ENVIRONMENT— Nuclear Energy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
H J Res 87. Nevada Nuclear Waste Dump/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Requiring the Transport and Storage of
Hazardous Nuclear Waste in Nevada.
Since the advent of nuclear power, the United States has struggled to find a place to store the radioactive waste that results. Since 1987, the federal government had narrowed consideration of possible storage sites to one: Yucca Mountain, a location 90 miles outside Las Vegas, Nevada. The Bush administration decided that enough study had been done, and it was time to approve the Nevada site as the nation's primary nuclear waste storage facility. Progressives disagreed with this decision. They believed nuclear power was unsafe and that transporting the waste across the country to Nevada exposed it to unacceptable risk of accident or attack. They supported a Gibbons (R-NV) point of order that asserted the resolution establishing the waste site violated the Congressional Budget Act by mandating Nevada to host the site without providing necessary funds to do so. To get around this procedural move, Tauzin (R-LA) moved to consider the resolution under the Nuclear Policy Act of 1982, which negated the Congressional Budget Act and robbed Gibbons of the authority to raise his point of order. Progressives voted "no" on this motion because they opposed the waste site and so did not want to see Gibbons' point of order against the site undermined. But Progressives were in the minority on this issue: the motion passed, 308-105, and the Gibbons point of order fell. ENVIRONMENT— Nuclear Energy |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
H.J. Res. 84. Steel Tariffs/Vote to Hide Outcome of Steel Tariffs Issue in Complex Procedural Maneuvering.
Prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-an arm of the majority party leadershipmust be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a "self enforcing" rule. When the House adopts a "selfenforcing" rule, the vote on the rule is essentially a vote on the underlying legislation itself. In this case, the self-enforcing rule dealt with a resolution which expressed disapproval of President Bush's decision to impose a thirty-percent tariff on imported steel. If passed, the self-enforcing rule would automatically strike down that resolution. Proponents of the resolution argued that tariffs should be limited to twenty-percent; the tariff level recommended by the International Trade Commission (ITC). Those lawmakers argued that enacting a thirty-percent tariff would inspire foreign steel-producing nations to increase tariffs on U.S. goods as a form of retribution. Other legislators took an opposite approach. In their view, the influx of steel imports-which came mainly from Asia-violated international free trade agreements because the foreign-produced steel was sold to the U.S. below cost and was therefore illegal. U.S. steel companies, they argued, cannot effectively compete with foreign steel industries that are dumping steel on the world market to recoup losses from inefficient domestic production rather than to make a profit. Lawmakers who generally support free-trade agreements, then, were divided on the steel tariff issue; some opposed the Bush tariffs as an anti-free trade policy while others viewed the dumping of steel by foreign companies as a violation of free-trade agreements and therefore supported Bush's steel tariff. Progressives-who often support tariffs as a way to protect U.S. workers from international trade agreements-voted in opposition to the procedural motion which would allow a vote on the self-enforcing rule because, in their view, a straight up-or-down vote should have been held on the steel tariffs issue. Hiding the policy outcome of steel tariffs in complex procedural maneuvering, they argued, would hinder public awareness and reduce the accountability of lawmakers to steel workers as a result. The motion to proceed to a vote on the self enforcing rule was adopted 355-62, the rule was subsequently passed by a 386-30 vote margin, and, with the adoption of the self enforcing rule, the resolution expressing opposition to President Bush's steel tariff proposal was automatically struck down. LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
H Res 392. Support for Israel/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Would Undermine the U.S. Position in Middle-
East Peace Negotiations By Expressing Support for Israel.
With the president preparing to turn his attention to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, many members of Congress wanted to make a statement in support of Israel's fight against terrorism and against Yasser Arafat. Progressives opposed making such a statement, because they felt it would undermine America's role as a neutral arbiter in the conflict, and because it failed to call Israel to account for killing Palestinian civilians and maintaining settlements in the occupied territories. In the House, most measures come with a set of rules that must be approved before the measure itself can be considered. Those pushing the statement of support for Israel wanted to suspend the rules, which limits debate, forbids amendments, and requires a two-thirds vote to pass. However, they first proposed a rule for debate on suspending the rules. Progressives opposed the statement of support and opposed passing it under suspension of the rules (which prevented them from bringing any amendments), so they also opposed this rule that allowed these other measures to be considered. However, they were in the minority, and the rule outlining debate on suspension of the rules passed by a wide margin, 329-76. WAR & PEACE— Israeli-Palestinian Conflict |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
H Res 392. Support for Israel/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Would Undermine the U.S. Position in Middle-
East Peace Negotiations By Expressing Support for Israel.
As the Bush Administration prepared to try to broker a peace between Israel and Palestine, Congress was eager to make a statement in support of the former over the latter. The non-binding statement backed Israel's efforts against terrorism and condemned Yasser Arafat for his apparent support of terrorist attacks. Progressives opposed this statement because they felt it only complicated peace efforts by undermining the "neutral broker" role of the United States, and because they felt Israel should also answer for killing Palestinian civilians and refusing to withdraw settlements. In the House, most bills come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on before the bill itself can be considered. This process can be evaded by proposing to suspend the rules, which limits debate, forbids amendments, and requires a two-thirds vote to pass the bill itself. Supporters of the pro-Israel statement decided to suspend the rules for its passage, but this suspension and passage motion itself needed to be debated. Toward that end, the Republican leadership proposed a secondary rule that would dictate the conduct of this secondary debate about the motion to suspend the rules. This secondary rule also required its own debate. In the midst of this debate on the secondary rule, Diaz-Balart (R-FL) moved to order the previous question, a way of cutting off the debate and calling a vote on the rule being discussed. Progressives opposed the statement of support, so they opposed suspending the rules to pass it, opposed passing the rule that would allow the process to begin, and opposed the motion to bring this rule to a vote. They voted "no" on the motion to order the previous question, but they were greatly outnumbered in this position. The motion passed 328-82. WAR & PEACE— Israeli-Palestinian Conflict |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Final Passage of a Bill to Reauthorize a Host of Important Federal Agricultural Programs.
The farm bill is a huge conglomeration of federal agriculture programs that must be reauthorized every few years. By 2002 reauthorization was overdue, so members of both parties struggled hard to put together a package. The bill they settled on took a step back from the free-market solutions favored by Republicans in the reauthorization of 1996. It also retreated from some Progressive elements in the Senate's version of the bill. The Senate bill gave cash supports to farmers who participated in conservation programs, capped the total subsidies a single farm could receive in a given year at a relatively low $275,000, and thwarted corporate efforts to consolidate animal raising and slaughtering into a single business. The final version of the bill removed the slaughtering restrictions and many of the conservation programs and increased the subsidy cap to $360,000. It also reinstated food stamps for legal immigrants and a wide range of price supports, and authorized a new $1 billion dairy subsidy for threeand- a-half years. Progressives, however, could not agree with the other changes-especially the higher subsidy cap, which they felt helped large farms at taxpayer expense-and voted "no." Even so, the bill passed by a wide margin, 280-141. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Reauthorize a Host of Important Federal Agricultural
Programs.
The farm bill is a large composite of federal agriculture programs that must be reauthorized every few years. With reauthorization overdue by 2002, lawmakers cobbled together a compromise bill that retreated from the free-market approach Republicans had taken in 1996. However, it also retreated from a number of provisions in the Senate's version of the bill, including both subsidies to farmers to encourage conservation and a loosening of the cap on the maximum subsidy any single farm could receive in a given year. Kind (DWI) tried to reinsert these provisions. He moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the cap be lowered from $360,000 to $275,000, and that extra money be diverted to conservation, nutrition, rural development, and renewable energy programs. Progressives supported this motion because they felt there was too little conservation in the current bill and the large subsidies only benefited large corporate farms. They voted "yes," but the motion failed 172-251. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— Agriculture ENVIRONMENT— Renewable Energy ENVIRONMENT— Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Agriculture |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
HR 2871. Export-Import Bank/Vote to Eliminate U.S. Subsidies to Large Corporations That Layoff More U.S. Workers
than Foreign Workers.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States administered a program that subsidized U.S. companies whose overseas competitors also received subsidies. Progressives disagreed with this program because they could not see the need to provide subsidies to some of America's largest corporations. They had particular difficulty understanding why a company should receive such a subsidy while in the process of shifting its workforce overseas. Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment to the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank that would forbid subsidies for corporations that laid off more U.S. employees than overseas employees. This amendment received Progressive support, but was ultimately outvoted by a wide margin, 135-283. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
HR 3231. INS Reform/Vote to Exclude Civil Service Protections to INS Employees.
The inability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to prevent the September 11th hijackers from entering the country left most in Congress eager to reform the agency. A bill in the House with broad bipartisan support split the INS into two bureaus and placed it in a new Agency for Immigration Affairs. Issa (R-CA) proposed an amendment to this bill that would have excluded employees of the new agency from civil service protections, which meant they could be fired at will and would be left with little recourse against disciplinary actions in general. Progressives opposed this amendment, because they felt there was no need to undo hardfought protections for federal employees in order to make the agency function. Most members of the House agreed, and the amendment was rejected 145-272. LABOR RIGHTS— Rights of Public Employees |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Final Passage of Republican Version of New Accounting Industry Regulations.
The scandal at Enron left the confidence many had in the corporate accounting system shaken. Arthur Anderson, Enron's auditor, had ignored improprieties in Enron's books in order to preserve its position as Enron's business consultant. In response to this scandal and others like it, House Republicans proposed a bill that tightened regulatory controls on accounting industry. The bill set up an accounting oversight board at the Security and Exchange Commission, and directed this board to impose accounting standards, including a rule forbidding a firm from auditing and consulting for the same company. The bill also directed companies to report additional information in their financial statements and banned executives from financial transactions that employees' pension funds did not allow them to participate in. Though a step in the right direction, to Progressives the bill was far too small a step. They wanted to see stronger regulations and oversight and stricter accountability. Though they supported reform, they opposed the Republican version of it. However, they were strongly outnumbered, and the bill passed 334-90. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Vote to Recommit to Committee the Republican Version of New Accounting Industry
Regulations.
The scandal at Enron had been particularly bad because the company's auditing firm, Arthur Anderson, ignored accounting improprieties in Enron's books in order to keep Enron as a business consulting client. To address this sort of problem, Republicans in the House proposed a bill that would establish an auditing oversight board that would set rules for the industry. The bill also directed this oversight board to ban any firm from simultaneously providing business consulting and auditing services to the same company. Progressives and Democrats in general felt this legislation did not go far enough. LaFalce (D-NY) proposed a substitute version that would have established a public regulator to oversee audits, banned financial analysts from owning stock in the companies they covered, established a number of new restrictions on companies and the firms that audit them, and imposed tougher penalties for violations. When offered, this substitute was voted down. Undeterred, LaFalce offered essentially the same language again, this time in the form of a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the language be added. Progressives supported this motion as they had supported the original substitute, but their position faired to better this time. The motion to recommit was rejected, 205-222. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Vote on Democratic Version of New Accounting Industry Regulations.
The scandal at Enron served as a clarion call to those who sought to reform the financial auditing system. When auditing Enron's books, Anderson had looked the other way on accounting improprieties in order to keep its lucrative consulting relationship with the company. To prevent this scandal and others like it, House Republicans proposed a reform bill that established an accounting oversight board with powers to set some rules, and they directed this new board to ban an accounting firm from simultaneously consulting and auditing for the same company. Progressives and Democrats in general felt this did not go far enough. LaFalce (D-NY) proposed a substitute reform bill that created a public regulator to oversee audits, banned financial analysts from owning stock in the companies they covered, established a number of new restrictions on companies and the firms that audit them, and imposed tougher penalties for violations. Progressives favored this tougher approach because they believed the private auditing system was broken and allowed executives to hide a company's problems. Virtually all other Democrats agreed with them, but Republicans were determined not to regulate more than they felt necessary. On an almost perfect party-line vote, LaFalce's substitute was rejected, 202-219. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Vote to Establish a Federal Bureau of Audits to Examine the Financial Statements of All
Publicly-Traded Companies.
When the Anderson accounting firm audited Enron's books, they looked the other way on a number of accounting irregularities so they could continue consulting for Enron on the business side. This scandal, and several others like it, encouraged Congress to toughen regulatory oversight of the accounting profession. House Republicans proposed a reform bill that would establish a new oversight board and ban companies from both auditing and consulting for the same company. But many Democrats-including most Progressives-felt this did not go far enough. Kucinich (D-OH) proposed a substitute version that would establish a Federal Bureau of Audits that would audit all publicly traded companies' financial statements, replacing the private system in place. The bureau's employees would be subject to conflict-of-interest regulations, and the bureau itself would be independent with full powers of investigation. Progressives supported this idea as a more reliable way to validate a company's financial performance, but it was generally unpopular in the House as a whole because the new Bureau of Audits would effectively replace the private auditing industry. The substitute was rejected, 39-381. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Accounting Industry LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include Food Stamps for Legal Immigrants During Conference
Committee Negotiations with the Senate.
The farm bill authorizes a wide range of agricultural programs, and must be reauthorized every few years. Reauthorization was required by 2002, and the House and Senate both passed their own versions. This required a "conference committee" of negotiators from each body to resolve differences and produce a single version of the bill. The Senate version of the bill authorized food stamps for a variety of legal immigrants, but the version that passed the House did not include this provision. Baca (D-CA) moved to instruct the negotiators-"conferees"-from the House to accept this food stamp provision. Progressives approved of this motion, because they approved of the food stamp program and felt there was no reason why it should not apply to needy immigrants as well as citizens. They voted "yes," and the motion to instruct passed by a wide margin, 244-171. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Lift Ban on U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba During Conference
Committee Negotiations with the Senate.
The farm bill is a large piece of legislation that authorizes a wide range of agricultural programs. It had last been passed in 1996, and by 2002 was due to be reauthorized. Versions of the reauthorization had passed the House and Senate, and negotiators-"conferees"-from each body were hammering out the details of the final package. The Senate version lifted a ban on private financing for agricultural sales to Cuba. Progressives supported this move because they felt the ban only hurt American and Cuban farmers and businesses and was unlikely to undermine the Castro regime. Dooley (D-CA) moved to instruct the House conferees to agree to the Senate provisions lifting the ban. Progressives favored lifting the ban, so they also favored this motion to instruct. The motion passed by a wide margin, 273-143. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Farmers WAR & PEACE— Relations with Cuba |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
HR 586. Making Tax Cuts Permanent/Vote to Make Permanent Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001 Which Heavily Favor Wealthy
Individuals.
The $1.35 trillion tax cut Republicans pushed through Congress in 2001 was set to expire in 2010. Republicans proposed making the tax cuts permanent by eliminating this "sunset" provision. They accompanied this change with a series of adjustments to the IRS procedures for penalties, interest, and tax collection that were meant to ease the requirements on taxpayers. The Republican's proposal was also attached to a bill that would accelerate an increase in the tax credit for adoption. But the focus was on making the tax cuts permanent: the underlying adoption provision was merely a procedural vehicle to allow the tax cuts to be adopted without permitting much in the way of debate from Democrats. Progressives opposed the tax cuts because they felt they were heavily slanted toward the rich and should not be made permanent. The voted "no" on the motion to remove the sunset provision, but the motion was agreed to 229-198. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
HR 586. Making Tax Cuts Permanent/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Make Permanent Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001
Which Heavily Favor Wealthy Individuals.
Republicans passed a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 that had a 2010 expiration date. Republicans wanted to eliminate that expiration, and they proposed it in a bill that also accelerated an adoption tax credit and made changes to enforcement procedures in the IRS. Progressives opposed making the tax cut permanent because they believed the original cut heavily favored the rich and so should not be extended. House bills usually come with a "rule" that establishes the procedures for debate. Opponents of a bill tend to oppose the rule as well, because the bill cannot be considered if its rule is voted down. For this reason, Progressives voted against the tax cut bill's rule. But despite being joined in opposition by all other Democrats, they were outnumbered: the rule passed, 218-205. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
HR 586. Making Tax Cuts Permanent/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Make Permanent Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001
Which Heavily Favor Wealthy Individuals.
In 2001, the Bush administration had pushed a $1.35 trillion tax cut through Congress, but these cuts expired in 2010. A major goal of House Republicans since then had been to make these cuts permanent, and they proposed such a change in a bill that included an accelerated adoption tax credit and various changes in IRS tax collection procedure to ease the burden on taxpayers. Progressives argued that the tax cuts from 2001 heavily favored the rich, so they opposed this bill to extend them. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a "rule": a set of instructions for the conduct of debate. The rule must be voted on before a bill can be considered, so it is common for opponents of a bill to oppose the rule as well. For this reason, Progressives opposed the rule for the bill to make the tax cuts permanent. Furthermore, Progressives voted "no" when Hastings (R-WA) moved to order the previous question-a way of cutting off debate and calling for a vote on the rule-because they opposed the bill and its rule and so did not want to see either one come to a vote. Despite their opposition, the motion passed 219-206. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
HR 476. Transporting Minors for Abortions/Final Passage of a Bill to Criminalize the Transport of Minors Across State
Lines to Obtain an Abortion.
Many states passed laws requiring minors to obtain parental consent before receiving an abortion. To support these laws, Republicans proposed a bill that made it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if the intent is to evade a parental consent law. The minor herself was exempt from prosecution under this law, but the transporter would face up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Republicans resisted exemptions for family members, clergy members, and cab drivers by forbidding amendments to the bill. Progressives opposed the bill, arguing it was likely to encourage unsafe, back-alley abortions, and that in the case of incest it might require the girl to ask permission from the person who raped her. Though Progressives voted "no," the bill passed 260-161. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
HR 476. Transporting Minors for Abortions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Criminalize the Transport of Minors
Across State Lines to Obtain an Abortion.
Many states had laws on the books requiring minors to obtain parental consent before receiving and abortion. To prevent girls from crossing state lines to evade these laws, Republicans proposed a bill that made it a federal crime to transport a minor for that purpose. Though the law exempted the minor from prosecution, it threatened the transporter with up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Progressives argued that this bill would encourage unsafe, back-alley abortions. Furthermore, they argued that in the case of incest it might actually require a girl to seek permission for an abortion from the person who raped her. In an attempt to ease the bill's restrictions, Jackson-Lee (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions to add an exemption for a minor's adult siblings, grandparents, or religious leaders. Progressives voted for this motion, but it was rejected 173-246. FAMILY PLANNING— Abortion HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES— Individual Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Final Passage of a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of Pension Money
and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.
Pension reform became a hot issue on Capitol Hill after scandals at Enron and other corporations. At Enron, employees were prevented from selling their company stock and could only watch as it lost all its value, destroying their retirement with it. In response, Republicans proposed a reform bill that made it easier to diversify company pension plans and required employers to provide employees with outside investment advice. Progressives and Democrats in general agreed with the principle of this bill, but they had problems with several of its specifics. They worried that the outside investment advisors would be just as self-serving as the employer had been, but toward different ends. They also felt the diversification provision was too confusing: it gave employers maximum flexibility by allowing them to decide if stock they contributed to the pension could be sold after three years from the start of the employee's participation in the program or three years from the date the stock was added to the plan. Finally, they disliked a provision that weakened existing law to allow less equitable allocations of pension money between executives and employees. However, despite these complaints Progressives did not have the votes to kill the bill, and it passed 255-163. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of
Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.
After the scandals at Enron and other companieswhere employees locked into pension plans could only watch as their retirement savings disappeared along with the company's stock price-pension reform became popular on Capitol Hill. Republicans proposed a reform bill that made it easier for employees to diversify their portfolios, and that required employers to provide their employees with outside investment advice. Progressives and Democrats in general supported the principle of this bill, but felt it missed opportunities to do more. Miller (D-CA) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to the committee that drafted it with instructions to add a provision making executive pay subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Progressives voted for this motion, but it was rejected 204-212. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote on Democratic Version of Pension Reform Bill Designed to Provide Employees with
More Protections than Republican Measure.
In the wake of the scandals at Enron and other corporations, lawmakers saw a need for pension reform to save employees from being trapped with company stock as the company collapsed. A Republican reform bill made it easier for employees to diversify their portfolios, and required employers to give employees access to outside investment advisors. Nonetheless, Progressives and Democrats in general felt the bill did not go far enough. They favored a Democratic version that included a number of provisions more favorable to employees. The Democratic bill would have made executive pay subject to bankruptcy procedures, would have required pension boards to include an employee representative, and would have allowed employees to take their company to court if executive misbehavior caused their pension to lose value. But when this version of pension reform was proposed as a substitute to the Republican bill, it could not muster a majority. With Progressives voting "yes," the substitute was rejected 187-232. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of
Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.
The scandals at Enron and other corporations called attention to weaknesses in existing pension law. Executives could diversify their portfolios as a company headed into trouble while employees-restricted from selling by company regulations-would be left holding the bag. The reform bill House Republicans proposed made it easier for employees to diversify earlier, and mandated that employers provide employees with investment advice from outside experts. Progressives and Democrats in general supported reform in principle, but they disagreed with this specific bill for a number of reasons. They pointed to the confusing diversification provisions-which gave employers maximum discretion over how much of an employee's pension would be available to reinvest-and to the likelihood that outside investment advisors would be no less self-serving than the employer had been. They also complained that the bill weakened existing law mandating a certain amount of equity between executive and employee pensions. Because they opposed the bill, Progressives also opposed the "rule": the set of instructions outlining the conduct of debate. The rule must be passed before debate can begin, so a defeat for the rule is a defeat for the bill itself. However, despite unified Democratic opposition to the pension reform bill's rule, it still passed 215-209. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of
Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.
The scandals at Enron and other corporations-in which employees were restricted from selling stock and then left holding worthless retirement plansconvinced many on Capitol Hill that reform was necessary. The reform bill drafted by House Republicans gave employees much more flexibility to diversify their portfolios, and mandated that employers provide investment advice to aid that diversification. Progressives and Democrats in general agreed with the principle of the bill, but they had complaints about its specifics. They argued that the diversification provisions were too confusing and tilted toward employers, that provisions to ensure equity between executive and employee pensions were weakened from existing law, and that the mandated investment advisors would be likely to give self-serving advice. In the House, bills come partnered with a "rule," a resolution establishing the rules for debate on that bill. Because the rule must be voted on and passed before the bill can be considered, opponents of a bill will usually block the rule as well. When Linder (R-GA) moved to order the previous question-a way of cutting off debate and calling for a vote on the rule-Progressives voted "no," because they opposed the bill and its rule, and so did not want to see either one come to a vote. But they did not have the votes to prevail, and Linder's previous question motion passed, 218-208. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Seniors GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General LABOR RIGHTS— Pension Protections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
HR 3991. Changes to the Tax Code/Procedural Vote to Allow Privileged Consideration of a Bill Which Would Exempt
Certain Political Groups From Reporting Expenditures and Donors As Required By Current Law.
Republicans had long been opponents of the IRS, which they saw as overzealous and even illegitimate. Accordingly, they proposed a bill that would ease a wide range of mechanisms for enforcing tax collection. The bill they offered weakened or waived many first-time penalties for individual violations, extended the deadline for electronic filers to April 30, and added $3 million to the $6 million authorized for low-income taxpayer clinics. Progressives and Democrats in general did not disagree with these changes. But Republicans also added a provision that exempted certain independent political groups from reporting their expenditures and donors. Supporters of campaign finance reform-including Progressives-felt this opened a huge loophole in the campaign finance law that had been passed only the month before. To prevent campaign finance supporters from changing the tax bill to remove the disclosure exemption, the Republican leadership proposed the bill under suspension of the rules-a special status that forbids amendments but requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Their strategy was to force members to vote for a popular measure despite disagreeing with one of its provisions. Their plan was flawed, however, because support for campaign finance reform was too strong. The tax bill failed to receive a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds vote it required. It fell, 205-219. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
HR 3925. Technology Workers Exchange Program/Vote to Prevent Private Workers Temporarily Employed in the Public
Sector From Stealing Trade Secrets From the Federal Government.
A bill had been proposed in the House to establish a government-exchange program that would allow private-sector technology workers to work for two years in the federal government and public-sector technology employees to work for two years in a private company. Progressives worried that these private employees would access federal trade secrets and other proprietary information that they could later use for personal enrichment. Progressives also worried that the exchange program imposed no training requirements on the federal workers who participated and established no guarantees that the exchange would be one-for-one. This raised the possibility that federal employees would work for the private sector at public expense, without an equal number of private-sector employees returning the favor. Waxman (D-CA) tried to address the first problem by proposing an amendment that blocked private employees' access to sensitive information while they were participating in the program. The amendment also added $7 million to train technology workers for the federal government and include the exchange program under the requirements of such a training program. However, the amendment could not overcome solid Republican opposition, and it fell 204-219. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES— General GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Final Passage of a Budget Resolution Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's
Temporary Tax Cuts Which Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy Individuals.
The budget process starts off with the budget resolution, a broad blueprint for the coming year's spending and taxation. Republicans proposed a budget resolution for 2003 that stayed close to spending limits set by the White House and made permanent $353 billion of the previous year's temporary tax cuts. Progressives opposed this budget resolution because they felt the tax cuts were slanted toward the rich and because they believed more spending was needed on matters such as homeland security and a prescription drug benefit. Even so, they did not have the votes to defeat it: it passed on a perfect party-line vote, 213-206. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Reconsider the Rules of Debate to Allow
Democrats to Offer Amendments to the Budget Resolution.
The budget resolution is the first step in the process of developing a budget for the federal government. It sets out non-binding spending and revenue totals for the coming year. House Republicans proposed a budget resolution that kept spending within tight limits set by the White House and devoted $353 billion to making the previous year's temporary tax cuts permanent. Progressives opposed this resolution because they felt that spending should be higher and that further tax cuts were unwarranted. House procedures usually require a bill to come with a set of instructions for debate, called the "rule," that must be voted on separately and before the bill itself is considered. The rule that Republicans had offered for debate of this budget resolution prevented any amendments. Progressives opposed the Republicans' budget, so they would have opposed the rule regardless, but the restrictive nature of this rule made them particularly upset. A vote was held on the rule and it passed, but Progressives and Democrats in general wanted another chance. They moved to reconsider the vote, but Goss (R-FL) countered with a motion to table (kill) this motion. Progressives supported a reconsideration of the rule, so they also opposed Goss's attempt to stop it. Even so, Goss's motion to table passed on a perfect party-line vote, 213-206. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote on Rules of Debate, Which Disallowed Any Democratic Amendments, on a
Budget Resolution Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts Which Disproportionately Benefit
Wealthy Individuals.
The budget resolution is the first step in establishing spending and revenue levels for the federal government. Though fundamentally non-binding, it serves as an outline of the individual taxing and spending decisions to come. Republicans submitted a budget resolution for 2003 that cut taxes and limited spending. In so doing they earned the determined opposition of Progressives, who felt taxes should remain at their current levels and spending should increase. Most bills considered by the House come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on separately. Progressives opposed the rule for the budget resolution, partly because they opposed the bill itself and partly because the rule prevented them from offering any amendments to the budget. As a result, when the rule came up for a vote, they voted "no." However, their votes and the votes of all other Democrats were not enough, and the rule was adopted 222-206. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Prevent Consideration of the Budget Resolution,
Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts, Until Democratic Amendments Were Allowed in the
Debate.
The first budgeting step for the federal government is passage of the budget resolution, a non-binding document that sets out broad spending and revenue totals for the coming year. The Republicans proposed a resolution for 2003 that devoted $353 billion to making permanent the previous year's temporary tax cuts, and that kept the government within strict spending limits. As with most legislation in the House, this budget resolution came with a corresponding resolution establishing the rules for debate on the measure. Opponents of a bill will usually oppose the bill's rule, because if the rule fails to pass the bill also dies. Progressives disliked both the tax cut and the spending limits in the Republican budget resolution, so they also opposed the rule. They were particularly opposed to the rule because it prevented them from amending the budget resolution in debate. Republicans had won an important victory on the rule when they won a motion for the previous question (see vote 75), a way of ending debate on the rule and calling it up for a vote. Defeating a previous motion question essentially turns debate on an issue over to opponents. Slaughter (D-NY) moved to reconsider this motion for the previous question, but Goss (RFL) countered with a motion to table (kill) Slaughter's motion. Progressives opposed Goss's motion to table because they supported Slaughter's motion to reconsider, opposed the previous question motion (and wanted another chance to vote it down), and opposed the rule which was the current matter for debate. In short, this elaborate series of parliamentary maneuvers all related to passing the rule, which was itself a stand-in for the budget resolution. Progressives voted "no" on Goss's motion to table, but they lost 222-206. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Budget Resolution Which Makes Permanent
Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts Which Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy Individuals.
An important first step in the development of a budget is the budget resolution, a blueprint for overall spending and revenue in the coming year. The resolution provides some procedural incentives for staying within its dictates, but is fundamentally nonbinding and provides instead a forum for debate about large-scale government priorities. Republicans proposed a resolution for 2003 that made many of the temporary tax cuts from the previous year permanent and kept the government within tight spending limits. Progressives opposed both the tax cuts and the spending limits, so they opposed the resolution itself. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a set of rules for debate that must be voted on separately before consideration of the bill itself can begin. Progressives opposed this rule because they opposed the budget resolution itself, but also because the rule prevented them from offering any amendment to the resolution. To move this closed rule toward passage, Goss (R-FL) moved to order the previous question, which would end debate on the rule and call it up for a vote. Progressives opposed Goss's motion because they opposed the budget resolution and its rule, and so had no interest in seeing either come to a vote. They voted "no," but the motion passed anyway, 221-206. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
HR 2146. Mandatory Sentencing for Repeat Sex Offenders/Vote to Commission a Study to Examine the Impact of the
"Two Strikes and You're Out" Criteria for Repeat Child Sex Offenders.
Support was broad and bipartisan for a "two strikes and you're out" bill for repeat child sex offenders. Those convicted of a sex offense involving a child on federal property would be automatically sentenced to life in prison. Despite supporting the overall bill, Progressives worried that the impact of the law was uncertain. As such, they supported a Conyers (DMI) amendment that would require a report to Congress for each case sentenced under the new law: the range of possible sentences that would otherwise have applied, the actual sentence that would have been administered, and the race, ethnicity, gender, and age of the both the defendant and the victim. The amendment was adopted 259- 161. All but five Democrats voted in favor, as did a substantial 64 of 219 Republicans. JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Punishment Fitting the Crime |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Final Passage of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for
Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.
An important item on the conservative agenda was reform of the federal class action laws. Class action lawsuits-those involving a large number of plaintiffs-have traditionally been easier to bring and win in state court. Republicans felt more of these suits should end up in federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. They proposed a bill that would give federal courts original jurisdiction over class actions where the total damages exceeded $2 million and any of the plaintiffs lived in different states. In existing law, federal courts considered only cases where each plaintiff stood to win at least $75,000, and in which the defendant and lead plaintiff lived in different states. Progressives opposed this bill as a way to stifle one of the most important means of holding corporations accountable for their actions. However, their opposition was not enough, and the bill passed the House 233-190. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and
Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in
Those Cases.
Republicans had long felt that there were too many class-action lawsuits against corporations. Progressives favored these lawsuits because they were often the only way to hold a corporation accountable for its actions, but Republicans not only opposed many of these lawsuits on principle, they also felt it was too easy to bring them in state court where the odds of a decision favoring the plaintiff were higher. As such, the Republican House leadership drafted a bill to require that more of these suits be brought in federal court. Sandlin (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) this bill to the committee that drafted it with instructions that it forbid defendants who had knowingly committed a terrorist act from moving a class action suit to federal court. Most motions to recommit include the word "forthwith," which in practice means the bill is simply amended and then returned for immediate reconsideration without returning to the committee at all. Sandlin's motion did not include this word, so it involved sending the bill back to the actual committee for reconsideration, which would require starting the debate on the bill over again on a different day. Progressives supported terrorist provisions of this motion to recommit, but they were even more in favor of stalling forward progress on the bill itself, so they voted in favor. However, the motion failed 191- 235. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Reaffirm Jurisdiction of State Courts in Class Action Lawsuits.
Republicans disliked the large number of class-action lawsuits brought in state courts, where the outcomes more often favored the plaintiffs and punished corporations. They drafted a bill to require that more of these suits be moved to federal court. Moreover, the bill as written stipulated that any case taken up by the federal courts and then dismissed by federal standards of procedure could not then be tried in state court under state laws. Frank (D-MA) proposed an amendment that would ensure that suits not certified as federal class actions could still be tried in state court. Furthermore, his amendment provided that the case could not later be moved to federal court unless it met current "diversity" standards for such a move-that is, that the litigants hailed from enough separate jurisdictions to warrant the move. Progressives supported the amendment as a way to move more cases back to state court and to forestall what they saw as the real motive of the bill-discouraging class action lawsuits-but it was rejected 191-234. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Reaffirm Jurisdiction of State Courts in Class Action Lawsuits in Cases Where
the Defendant Destroyed, Falsified, or Altered Material Evidence.
Over the years, class-action lawsuits had become a significant means of regulating corporate behavior by suing on behalf of a large number of wronged individuals. Republicans disliked such lawsuits, and they especially disliked how easy it was to bring these suits in state court, where the outcome more often favored the plaintiffs. Accordingly, they drafted a bill to require that more of these suits be filed in federal court. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) proposed an amendment to this bill that would prevent the move to federal court if the request was made by a party that had destroyed, falsified, or otherwise altered material evidence. Progressives favored the amendment as a way to keep more cases in state court and to hold corporations accountable for extra-legal destruction of evidence, but the amendment was rejected 177-248. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Reaffirm Jurisdiction of State Courts in Class Action Lawsuits in Cases Where a
Company Incorporates Overseas for Purposes of Avoiding Prosecution in State Courts.
One item on the Republicans' agenda was class-action lawsuit reform. Republicans disliked the power of class action suits to constrain corporate behavior, and they felt these lawsuits were particularly easy to bring in state court. They drafted a bill that would require many more of these suits to be filed in federal court, where the outcome was less likely to favor the plaintiffs. Conyers (D-MI) proposed an amendment that would obstruct a particular form of manipulation of this system: businesses that incorporated a new company abroad, acquired themselves with that new company, and then used the new cross-national character of their firm as a reason to move a class-action suit to federal court. Conyers's amendment would prevent the move to federal court in such circumstances. Progressives supported the amendment as a way to push more cases back to state court where the chances for plaintiffs were better, but the amendment was rejected 202-223. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Allow State Courts to Adjudicate Class Action Lawsuits Involving Antitrust and
Consumer Protection Violations.
Republicans believed that corporations faced too many class action lawsuits, and that these lawsuits were especially easy to bring in state court. As a result, they proposed a bill that would require more of these cases to go to federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. Lofgren (D-CA) worried that the bill prevented district and city attorneys from filing public interest suits in state court. Her amendment would allow local prosecutors to bring civil (i.e., private) suits to enforce antitrust and consumer protection laws in state court. Progressives supported this change because the feared the law as currently written would discourage pro-consumer lawsuits in states whose relevant laws were stronger than the federal version. However, the amendment was rejected 194-231. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Hold Corporations Accountable for Withholding or Shredding Documents
Related to a Class Action Lawsuit.
Republicans had long felt that class action lawsuits were too easy to bring in state courts. They proposed a bill that would move more such cases to federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. Progressives disliked this change, because they felt class action lawsuits were often the only way to hold a corporation accountable for its behavior. To tip the balance of the bill back in the plaintiffs' direction, Waters (D-CA) proposed an amendment that would encourage corporations to bring forward information required to be handed over in a discovery motion as part of a class-action suit. Any corporation found to have withheld or shredded such documents would be on record as admitting to the facts of the motion. Progressives voted for this amendment, but it was rejected 174-251. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and
Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in
Those Cases.
In the shadow of class action shareholder lawsuits against Enron and other corporations, House Republicans struggled to pass a measure to make such lawsuits less attractive to plaintiffs. Republicans complained that state laws made class action lawsuits easy to bring and more likely to bear fruit, and that plaintiffs could "venue shop" for the state that would make the outcome most advantageous to them. To address this issue, Republicans proposed a bill that would make it easier to file a class action suit in federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. Progressives and Democrats in general argued that because class-action suits were often the only means of calling corporations to task for their behavior, permissive state laws were to be encouraged, not circumvented. They also noted that, in the absence of class-action litigation, Enron's employee shareholders would have lost their retirement savings with no recourse. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must ordinarily be voted on separately. Opponents of a bill with try to block the rule in hopes of sinking the bill itself. For this reason, Progressives opposed the rule for the class action lawsuit bill. Progressives also stood opposed when Republicans moved to order the previous question-a way of ending debate about the rule and holding a vote on it-because voting down the previous question motion would essentially vote down the rule, and the bill itself. Despite their opposition and the opposition of all but six Democrats, the motion passed, 221-198. The rule was then agreed to on a voice (unrecorded) vote. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— General JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL— Equal Access to Justice |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
HR 1885. Extension of Residency to Immigrants/Vote to Tighten Border Security and Require the Collection of
Additional Information from Immigrants.
Partly in hopes of attracting Latino voters, members of both parties supported a bill to allow immigrants whose visas had expired to remain in the United States while applying for legal residency. Progressives and Democrats in general were particularly supportive of the bill because it adhered to a principle of cultural openness that had long been a cornerstone of the party. Republicans were more conflicted: a majority opposed the measure on the grounds it encouraged visa holders to break the law, but a substantial minority supported it in the hopes it would boost enrollment in the Republican party and soften the party's anti-immigrant image. To make the bill more palatable to House conservatives and members of the Senate, the bill's backers wanted to attach a number of provisions to tighten border security. These included a requirement schools to report when a student with a student visa did not show up for classes, a requirement that passports and visas of other countries include "biometric" information such as fingerprints or retina scans, and a requirement that ships and airplanes traveling to and from the U.S. provide a list of passengers before embarking. Supporters of the bill wanted to add the amendments and pass the bill without risking further changes, so they proposed it under "suspension of the rules": a special status that forbids amendments but requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Despite lacking a majority of Republicans, the bill's supporters still had the 275 votes necessary to win. With Progressives voting in favor, the measure passed 275-137: the residency extensions were bundled with tightened border security and the whole bill was passed on to the Senate. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— Immigrants MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Civil Rights MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Immigration Law Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
HR 3090. Federal Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment
Benefits and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.
In the spring of 2002, both Republicans and Democrats agreed that the economy was weak enough to warrant an extension of unemployment benefits. Along with the unemployment benefits, Republicans also added a number of "stimulus" measures in the form of temporary business tax breaks. In the House, passing most bills requires separately passing a measure establishing the rules for debate. In the vote at issue here, Republicans moved to order the previous question-which ends debate and calls for a final vote-on the rules for debate on the bill extending unemployment benefits. Progressives supported the underlying bill-despite its business tax breaks-but they still voted "no" on the previous question motion. Had they prevailed on this procedural matter, it would have handed control of the floor debate to the Democrats, and the chances for a more progressive bill would have increased substantially. That said, they did not prevail, and the previous question motion passed, 217-192. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
H Res 354. Suspension of the Rules/Vote to Allow Privileged Consideration of a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment
Insurance Which Included Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.
In the House of Representatives, the rules for debating a bill ordinarily must be passed separately from the bill itself. However, it is possible to pass a bill under "suspension of the rules," which limits floor speeches and prevents amendments, but also requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Republicans proposed such a suspension the rules for a series of bills considered on March 6. Progressives and Democrats in general opposed this suspension, because it applied to the Republican leadership's version of a bill to extend unemployment benefits. There was broad bipartisan consensus on this extension, but Republicans had added to it an "economic stimulus" package that Progressives complained was slanted too strongly toward businesses and had little hope of passage in the Senate. Under suspension of the rules, many members would feel compelled to vote for the whole bill in order to get the unemployment extension, because they would not have the power to amend the bill to rid it of the stimulus package. When the Republicans moved to order the previous question-a way of ending debate and forcing a vote on whether or not to suspend the rules-Progressives voted "no," because they did not support the suspension and so did not favor voting on it. On an almost strictly party-line vote (one Democrat supported the motion), the motion passed, 218- 191, and the Progressive position failed. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
HR 1542. Telecommunications Regulation/Final Passage of a Bill to Enable Regional Bell Companies to Enter Broadband
Markets Without Demonstrating Their Adherence to Reforms Codified in the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act.
Many Republicans and even a substantial number of Democrats were unhappy with the telecommunications reform passed in 1996. The 1996 law excluded the regional Bell phone companies from participating in the high-speed Internet or long-distance phone markets until they could show they had opened their local phone lines to competition. Opponents of this regulation noted that cable companies could compete for broadband with cable modems while cell phone providers could compete for local competition without any concessions from the Baby Bells. They proposed a bill that would essentially lift the requirement off the backs of the Baby Bells and allow them unfettered access to the broadband market. Progressives opposed this bill as a handout to the regional Bell companies and an abandonment of the goal of real competition in local phone service. They voted against the bill, but it passed 273-157. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
HR 1542. Telecommunications Regulation/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Enable Regional Bell Companies to
Enter Broadband Markets Without Demonstrating Their Adherence to Reforms Codified in the 1996 Telecommunications
Reform Act.
The 1996 telecommunications reform tried to open local phone service to competition by requiring regional Bell phone companies to open their phone lines as a requirement for access to the high-speed Internet and long-distance phone markets. Many Republicans-and many Democrats as well-believed this hampered competition in high-speed Internet access because it held back the Baby Bells even as cable companies were providing broadband services through cable modems. They proposed a bill whose main provision was to remove this requirement altogether. Progressives opposed this change as a handout to the Baby Bells and an admission that competition would never come to the local phone markets. They supported a Markey (D-MA) motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that essentially removed this deregulatory language from the bill. Supporters of the Markey motion then moved to order the previous question, a way to bring the matter at hand to a vote by ending debate and the possibility of amendment. Progressives voted for this motion, but it failed, 173-256. When a previous question motion fails, the matter it refers to is effectively rejected, so this was the end of Markey's motion to recommit and the end of opponents' attempts to revise the bill. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
HR 1542. Telecommunications Regulation/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Allow Regional Bell Companies to Enter
Broadband Markets Without Demonstrating Their Adherence to Reforms Codified in the 1996 Telecommunications
Reform Act.
The original 1996 telecommunications reform law required regional Bell phone companies to prove they had opened their local phone lines to competition before they would be given permission to participate in high-speed Internet or long-distance service. Many Republicans argued this was a regulatory failure: it made it difficult for the Baby Bells to branch into high-speed Internet, even as cable companies were providing the same service with cable modems. They drafted a bill to remove the requirement that Baby Bells open their phone lines to competitors. Progressives opposed this move as a gift to the Baby Bells and a way to ensure that local phone service would never be competitive. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must be voted on separately before the bill itself can be considered, so obstructing the rule is a common way to kill the bill itself. Progressives opposed the underlying regulatory bill, so they voted "no" on its rule. Nonetheless, the rule passed by a wide margin, 282-142, and debate on the bill began. GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER— Telecommunications Industry |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
HR 622. Unemployment Benefits and Economic Stimulus/Vote on a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits and
Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.
House Republicans differed from essentially all other actors on Capitol Hill about how to address the economy's stagnation. They felt a package that both extended unemployment benefits and provided a series of tax breaks to businesses and individuals was the most effective means to help forestall deeper economic problems. Democrats and Senate Republicans agreed with House Republicans about the unemployment benefits, but disliked the tax breaks. Democrats-including Progressives-felt that the tax breaks were too heavily weighted toward business. Moreover, both Democrats and Senate Republicans believed the prospects in the Senate for the tax breaks were dim, so they felt the breaks not be coupled with the unemployment benefits because they did not want to jeopardize passage of the former with the latter. Nonetheless, House Republicans pressed forward with both the unemployment benefits and the tax breaks. Thomas (R-CA) moved to concur with the Senate's version of unemployment extension-an additional 13 weeks of coverage-while adding the tax breaks as well. Progressives opposed the tax breaks, so they voted against the motion. Despite their opposition and the opposition of all but 10 Democrats, the motion passed, 225-199. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
HR 622. Extending Unemployment Benefits/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits
and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.
With a stagnating economy, everyone on Capitol Hill agreed that unemployment benefits should be extended. House Republicans felt that a "stimulus" package of tax breaks for businesses and individuals should also be a part of the unemployment extension. Democrats, Progressives, and even Senate Republicans felt that adding an economic stimulus plan simply confused the issue and risked sinking the bill in the Senate. In the House, most bills come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on separately. Obstructing the rules for a bill will kill the bill itself, so a bill's opponents will commonly vote against the rule. Progressives opposed the bill because they were upset about the attached stimulus plan and what they saw as its dismal prospects in the Senate, so they opposed its corresponding rule. With their votes against, the rule still passed 213-206 on a perfect party-line vote. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
HR 622. Extending Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment
Benefits and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.
As the economy continued to stagnate, Congress debated how best to address the problem. All were agreed that unemployment benefits needed to be extended, but House Republicans differed from their Senate colleagues, as well as virtually all Democrats, about whether and what sort of stimulus package needed to be included with the extension. Progressives and Democrats in general did not like the sort of business incentives House Republicans were proposing for "stimulus," and they believed that attaching such incentives to unemployment benefits was dooming those benefits to die in the Senate. In the House, the rules for debate on a given bill must be voted on separately, and if the rule is voted down, the bill cannot be considered. Opposing the rule is therefore a common way for a bill's opponents to fight the bill itself. For this reason, Progressives opposed the rule for the Republican unemployment bill when it was proposed. Republicans made a push in favor of the rule by moving to order the previous question, a way of ending debate and bringing the rule up for a vote. Progressives voted "no" on this motion because they opposed the rule and so did not want it to come to a vote. However, the motion passed, 216-207. This opened the way to a vote on the rule, and ultimately to consideration of the Republican package of unemployment benefits and business tax breaks. AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD— The Unemployed FAIR TAXATION— Corporate Tax Breaks, General |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Final Passage of Bill to Close "Soft" Money Loophole on Donations to National
Parties and Reduce the Role of Money in the Political System.
Though existing campaign finance regulations restricted individual political donations to $1000 per candidate per election cycle, they permitted unrestricted donations to parties for the purpose of "party-building" activities. However, the definition of "party-building" had been broadened through a series of court cases to include almost any issue advocacy advertisement. This "soft money" exception had become a common way for corporations and wealthy individuals to give large sums of money to political campaigns. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) proposed a reform bill to close this loophole and reduce the influence of money in politics. The bill banned soft money donations to the national parties entirely, but allowed up to $10,000 in donations to state parties for get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. The bill also banned issue advertisements that targeted a specific candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. To compensate for the absence of the soft money option, the bill also doubled the maximum individual donation to $2000, and indexed it for inflation. Progressives supported the bill as a meaningful effort to clean the political system of corporate money. They voted "yes" along with 41 Republicans and all but 12 Democrats, and the bill passed, 240-189. Upon passage, its next stop was the Senate. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote on Republican Version of Bill Which Would Retain "Soft" Money Loophole to
Allow Unlimited Flow of Money to National Parties.
Over the course of the 1990s, "soft money"-donations to parties not covered by caps on individual donations-had become one of the most significant avenues for corporations and wealthy individuals to gain access to the political system. Parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual campaigns while staying within the letter of the law. The Shays-Meehan reform bill was designed to eliminate the soft money loophole, but it had to survive a series of alternative proposals offered by opponents of the bill. One of these-proposed by Ney (R-OH)-was not an amendment but an entire substitute for the bill under consideration. Unlike the Shays-Meehan version, it restricted soft money donations to the national parties rather than banning them entirely. Progressives opposed the bill because they supported aggressive reform and saw the Ney substitute as a watered-down version of Shays-Meehan that would complicate passage in the Senate. With the help of "no" votes from Progressives the Ney substitute was rejected, 181-248. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Preventing National Parties
From Using Funds to Construct Office Buildings.
To opponents of the influence of money in politics, one of the biggest problems in the 1990s was the "soft money" loophole in existing campaign finance law. The loophole permitted corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid caps on individual donations by giving to parties instead. Parties were supposed to use soft money for "party building," but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) proposed a bill that closed this loophole, but to pass it needed to survive attempts by opponents to add unfriendly amendments. Such amendments aimed to peel votes away from the fragile majority coalition and complicate passage of the bill in the Senate. Kingston (R-GA) proposed one of these amendments: a provision forbidding national parties from using certain funds to pay for the construction costs of office buildings. Progressives saw this as an attempt to undermine the reform bill; because they supported reform, they opposed this amendment. Even so, the amendment passed, 232-196. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Intended Complicate Implementation of Reform By Requiring Mid-Election
Cycle Adherence to Law Changes.
Reformers of the campaign finance regulatory system sought to close the so-called "soft money" loophole: the provision in existing law that permitted unrestricted donations to political parties, even as individual donations were restricted to $1,000 per candidate per election cycle. The parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building," but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) proposed a bill that closed this loophole, but to get it through the House they needed to avoid unfriendly amendments from the opposition meant to fracture the fragile pro-reform majority and complicate the bill's passage in the Senate. One such amendmentproposed by Reynolds (R-NY)-sought to change the date on which the bill would become effective. Shays and Meehan had specifically placed the effective date after the coming election to earn votes and save candidates and parties from changing strategies in the middle of an election season; the Reynolds amendment disregarded that logic and made the effective date the day after the bill passed, thus ensuring that many members would have a reason not to support the bill on final passage. Progressives opposed this amendment because they supported reform and saw the amendment as an attempt to undermine that reform. With Progressives voting "no," the amendment was rejected 190-238. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring a Difficult-to-
Enforce Ban on Donations By Non-Citizens.
The political system of the 1990s became awash in so-called "soft money": unrestricted donations to political parties to circumvent caps on donations from individuals. Parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to support individual candidates with soft money while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) advocated a reform bill that banned soft money donations to national parties. The bill had majority support in the House, but needed to survive unfriendly amendments by opponents, who sought to change the bill in ways that would peel away votes from the majority coalition and complicate passage in the Senate. One of these amendments was proposed by Wicker (R-MS), and would have banned non-citizens from donating to federal campaigns. Progressives opposed this amendment not only on its face, but also because they supported reform and knew that the amendment's ulterior motive was anti-reform. They voted "no" and helped sink the amendment, 160-268. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring Total Ban on Soft
Money Which Would Adversely Impact State Political Parties and Stand Little Change of Passage in Senate.
During the 1990s, corporations and wealthy individuals had learned to skirt restrictions on the size of donations to political campaigns by giving unrestricted "soft money" to political parties instead. The parties were supposed to use the money for "partybuilding" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. To address this issue, Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) pushed a reform bill that banned soft money donations to the national parties, though the bill also permitted such donations to state parties for the sake of get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. Opponents of the reform bill-mostly Republicans-sought to weigh it down with unfriendly amendments that would weaken support for the overall bill and complicate passage in the Senate. The strategy was dangerous for the bill's proponents because the pro-reform coalition was fragile, making it easy to peel away votes on specific issues. This vote was on one such amendment: a proposal to ban all soft money, not just donations to the national parties. Progressives opposed this amendment, because they supported reform and knew it was simply a way to undermine the reform effort. The amendment was rejected, 185-244. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Double Individual Contribution Limits.
Progressives and others had long complained that corporations and wealthy individuals could skirt restrictions on the size of donations to political campaigns by giving "soft money" to the political parties. The parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) pushed a reform bill that closed this loophole. In a late change they felt was necessary to pass the bill in both the House and the Senate, they strove to add a provision doubling the limit for individual donations from $1000 to $2000. This was meant to offset the elimination of the soft money option. Progressives wanted campaign finance reform to pass, but they felt doubling the amount wealthy donors could give was beyond their ability to compromise. When the amendment was proposed, Progressives voted against. The amendment passed anyway, 218-211, and the doubled limit was added to the final bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to
Advertising Restrictions for Workers, Farmers, and Families.
During the 1990s, "soft money" donations had become the way for corporations and wealthy individuals to give unrestricted amounts of money to parties and politicians. Parties were supposed to use soft money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. The Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill closed this loophole by banning soft money, but in order to pass it needed to survive a number of unfriendly amendments proposed by opponents. These amendments were meant to fracture the majority in favor of the bill and to make passage in the Senate more complicated. In this case, Combest (R-TX) proposed an amendment that would exempt advocacy of issues related to workers, farmers, and families from advertising restrictions in the bill. Progressives opposed this amendment because they knew it was meant to weigh down the bill itself: the breadth of the exempted categories exacted maximum damage to the bill's substance while gathering as many supporters of the amendment as possible. With the help of "no" votes from Progressives, the amendment fell, 191-237. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to
Advertising Restrictions for Veterans and Seniors.
Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (DMA) proposed a bill to close a loophole in the existing campaign finance law that allowed wealthy donors to give unrestricted amounts to political parties. The parties were supposed to use this "soft money" for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use the money to support individual campaigns while staying within the letter of the law. To pass, the Shays-Meehan bill had to survive attempts by opponents to add unfriendly amendments designed to split the majority or complicate passage in the Senate. Opponents hoped to add enough of these amendments to peel away votes and destroy the bill's majority support. This particular unfriendly amendment, proposed by Johnson (R-TX), would have exempted advocacy for veterans' or seniors' issues from the advertising restrictions. Progressives knew this was designed to weigh down the bill: the breadth of the exempted categories exacted maximum damage to the bill's substance while gathering as many supporters of the amendment as possible. Progressives supported campaign finance reform so they opposed this attempt to kill it. With Progressives voting "no," the amendment was rejected 200-228. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to
Advertising Restrictions for Civil Rights Groups.
One of the largest loopholes in existing campaign finance law was the so-called "soft money" exemption: a category of donations to political parties that had no restriction on size. Parties were supposed to use the money for "party building," but they had found ways to support individual candidates with the money while staying within the letter of the law. As a result, corporations and wealthy individuals had long used the loophole to influence politics. The Shays-Meehan reform bill banned soft money and made some restrictions on advertising, but to pass it needed to avoid unfriendly amendments designed either to fracture the majority in favor of the bill or to complicate passage in the Senate. Those who proposed these "poison pill" amendments did not necessarily support their substance: they suggested the amendments only as a means to sink the larger bill. This was one of those amendments: proposed by Watts (R-OK), it would have exempted advocacy on civil rights issues from the advertising restrictions in the bill. Progressives supported advocacy on civil rights, but they knew this move was designed to derail reform, so they opposed the amendment. Their "no" votes helped reject the amendment, 185-237. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to
Advertising Restrictions for Pro-Gun Groups.
For years, corporations and wealthy individuals had skirted campaign finance restrictions on the size of donations by giving "soft money" to parties, which was unregulated. The parties were supposed to use the money for "party building," but they had found ways to support individual candidates with the funds while staying within the letter of the law. Reformers sought to close this loophole with the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, which banned soft money donations to the national parties. Opponents of the bill knew it had majority support, so they tried to attach unfriendly amendments that would complicate the bill's passage in the Senate and peel away support for the bill itself. The most significant of these was an amendment by Pickering (R-MS) that would have exempted advocacy for the right to bear arms from advertising restrictions in the bill. The move brought many Southern Democrats over to the opposition, and produced the closest vote of any amendment to the bill: 209 for to 219 against. Progressives voted against for two reasons: because they opposed giving special protection to supporters of the NRA, and because they supported reform and opposed any attempts to derail it. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Strip a Provision That Reduced TV Advertising Rates to Candidates and
Parties.
After years of growing "soft money" donations of unregulated size to parties-those concerned about the influence of money in politics looked like they were going to get the reform they desired. Soft money was supposed to be used for "party-building" activities, but parties had discovered ways to support individual campaigns with the money while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) had proposed a bill that addressed this problem by banning soft money donations entirely, and making a number of other changes to the system. The amendment at issue here was proposed by supporters of the bill to add to the majority coalition and make the bill coincide with the Senate version for easier passage there. It stripped the existing reform bill of a provision that ensured candidates and parties would get a TV station's lowest advertising rates. Though the amendment was a good-faith effort to shepherd the bill along, Progressives could not back it. They supported the overall bill, but they also supported the lower ad rates, so they opposed this particular amendment. However, their opposition was not enough, and the amendment passed, 327-101, thus removing the ad rate provision from the bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring Bill's Adherence to
First Amendment to Provide Opponents with Ammunition for a Future Court Challenge.
This vote was part of the battle to pass campaign finance reform. The reform bill was meant to eliminate "soft money": unregulated donations to parties from corporations and wealthy individuals. Soft money was supposed to be used for "party-building" activities, but parties had discovered ways to support individual campaigns while staying within the letter of the law. Though the reform bill was not perfect, Progressives supported it as a meaningful attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics. The bill had been carefully crafted to ensure a majority and to reduce complications in the Senate as much as possible. Opponents of reform knew that a majority supported the bill, so their strategy was to bog it down with unfriendly amendments that would either peel away votes from the majority or make it more difficult to reconcile the House version with the Senate version. This was one of those amendments: it would have stated that no provisions in the bill could violate the First Amendment's protection for free speech. The statement would have provided ammunition for those who wanted to contest parts of the bill in court on First Amendment grounds. Progressives voted "no" on this unfriendly amendment, and it was rejected, 188-237. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote on Shays-Meehan Bill to Close "Soft" Money Loophole on Donations to
National Parties and Reduce the Role of Money in the Political System.
Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) had been pressing to reform the campaign finance laws for many years. Their goal was to eliminate so-called "soft money": money that avoided caps on the size of donations by exploiting a loophole in existing law. Soft money had become a way for corporations and wealthy individuals to give hundred-thousand and even million-dollar donations to political parties, who would in turn use it to support individual candidates. Shays and Meehan had brought their bill to a vote in previous Congresses, and they used a previous version of the bill as a starting point for debate. The vote at hand was to replace this previous version with the latest version, which included provisions designed to earn votes and ensure a smooth passage through the Senate. Progressives supported this version, because they supported removing big-money donations from politics and they knew this was the vehicle for achieving that end. With their support, the substitute version passed, 240-191, and became the default version of the bill. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote on Republican Version of Bill Designed to Complicate Passage of Reform By
Requiring Total Ban on Soft Money Which Would Adversely Impact State Political Parties and Stand Little Change of
Passage in Senate.
During the 1990s, the political system had become awash in so-called "soft money": unrestricted donations from corporations and wealthy individuals that exploited a loophole in campaign finance laws. Soft money was originally intended for "party-building activities," but parties had begun to use it to support individual candidates. Reform had been proposed before, and a previous version of the reform bill was used a starting point for debate. Under the rules of debate, Republicans were permitted two "substitutes": wholesale replacements for the bill under consideration. This was the first of these substitutes, and the most dangerous for supporters of reform: a version that banned all soft money, not just soft money for national parties, and that even forbade state parties from using soft money donations for get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. Progressives supported reform, so they opposed this substitute. The substitute would never have made it through the Senate, and it might not have made it through the House. This made a vote for it a vote against reform, because everyone involved understood it would undermine the larger effort to pass a bill. With Progressives voting "no," the substitute was rejected, 179-249. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Campaign Finance Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
H Res 5. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote Expressing the Sense of the House that the $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut Enacted
in 2001 Which Disproportionately Benefits Wealthy Individuals Should Not Be Repealed.
After Congress passed Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, Progressives and many Democrats immediately began talking of partial repeal. The actual package of cuts was temporary and it phased in gradually over the course of a decade. This provided plenty of opportunity for Progressives and other Democrats to repeal pieces of the tax cut along the way. To help protect the tax cut, Weller (R-IL) moved to express the non-binding "sense of the House" that the tax cut should not be suspended or repealed. Earlier, the House had voted to suspend the rules for the day, which meant debate on any matter was limited and a two-thirds vote was required for passage. These special restrictions applied to Weller's "sense of the House" motion as well: without two-thirds support, or 278 votes, the motion would fall. Progressives opposed Weller's motion because they opposed the original 2001 tax cut. Though Weller's motion received majority support, the 235-181 vote fell short of the 278 needed. The motion failed. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
H Res 342. Rules Suspension/Procedural Vote to Suspend House Rules to Allow Privileged Consideration of a Sense of
the House Resolution Expressing Support for the $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut Enacted in 2001 Which Disproportionately
Benefits Wealthy Individuals.
Most bills that travel through the House have an accompanying set of rules that govern debate and that must be voted on separately. Sometimes the rules will be suspended, which means no amendments can be offered to the bill, debate is limited, and passage requires two-thirds of the members present. Republicans in the House offered a special bill that suspended the rules for three measures that day. Progressives opposed this suspension because they opposed one of these motions in particular: a measure to express support for the president's tax cut. To them, the suspension of the rules was designed to push through this measure without allowing changes and with little debate. When Hastings (R-WA) moved to order the previous question-a parliamentary maneuver that would end debate and force a vote on the rules suspension resolution-Progressives voted "no" because they did not want to see the resolution come to a vote at all. The motion was passed, 212-204, on a perfect partyline vote, and the suspension of the rules was subsequently passed on a voice (unrecorded) vote. FAIR TAXATION— Tax Breaks for the Rich MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL— Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1762 To establish fixed interest rates for student and parent borrowers, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On Passage: H R 3529 Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3529 Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 320 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3529; to provide tax incentives for economic recovery and assistance to displaced workers |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 319 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 314 Providing for the Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3295 Help America Vote Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 311 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3295; Help America Vote Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Passage: H R 3005 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3005 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 306 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 3005, Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3129 Customs Border Security Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 305 Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Hour of Meeting: MOTION |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Passage: H R 3210 Terrorism Risk Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3210 Terrorism Risk Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3210 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 297 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3210, Terrorism Risk Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 297 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3210, Terrorism Risk Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 457 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3338 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3338 Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 296 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3338; Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3009 Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 289 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3009; Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 239 Expressing the sense of Congress that schools in the US should set aside a sufficient period of time to allow children to pray for, or quietly reflect on behalf of, the Nation during this time of struggle against the forces of international terrorism. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2887 Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Passage: H R 2269 Retirement Security Advice Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2269 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Passage: H R 3150 Secure Transportation for America Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3150 Secure Transportation for America Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3150 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3150 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3150; Aviation Security Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Passage: H R 3090 To Provide Tax Incentives for Economic Recovery |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3090 To Provide Tax Incentives for Economic Recovery |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3090 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 270 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3090; To provide tax incentives for economic recovery |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 270 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3090; To provide tax incentives for economic recovery |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3162 To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Passage: H R 2975 To Combat Terrorism |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2975 To Combat Terrorism |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 264 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2975; To Combat Terrorism |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 264 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2975; To Combat Terrorism |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 263 Waiving the Requirement of Clause 6(e) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3061 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On Passage: H R 1992 Internet Equity and Education Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1992 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2646 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2646 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2646 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2646 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2646 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2586 Department of Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2586 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2586 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2944 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2944 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2944 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 245 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2944; District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Passage: H R 2926 Air Transportaion Safety and System Stabilization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2926 Air Transportaion Safety and System Stabilization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 244 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 242 Waiving a Requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Passage: H R 2563 Bipartisan Patient Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2563 Bipartisan Patient Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2563 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2563 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2563 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 219 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2563; Bipartisan Patient Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 219 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2563; Bipartisan Patient Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Passage: H R 4 Securing America?s Future Energy Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 Securing America?s Future Energy Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4; Securing America?s Future Energy Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4; Securing America?s Future Energy Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Passage: H R 2505 Human Cloning Prohibition Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2505 Human Cloning Prohibition Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2505 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 214 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2505; Human Cloning Prohibition Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Passage: H R 2620 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2620 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2620 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2620 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 210 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2620; Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 210 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2620; Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 209 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2590 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2590 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2590 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2590 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2590 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2506 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2506 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2506 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2506 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Passage: H J RES 50 Disapproving Normal Trade Relations for China |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Passage: H R 7 The Community Solutions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 7 The Community Solutions Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 7 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 196 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7; The Community Solutions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 196 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7; The Community Solutions Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2500 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2500 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2500 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2500 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2500 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
Table Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1 No Child Left Behind Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2500 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2500 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Passage: H J RES 36 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 36 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 195 Commending the United States military and defense contractor personnel responsible for a successful in-flight ballistic missile defense interceptor test on July 14, 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 360 To honor Paul D. Coverdell |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 188 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2216 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2330 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2330 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2330 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2330 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 183 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2330; Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2311 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2311 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2311 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2311 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2311 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2299 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 178 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2299, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On the Question of Consideration: H RES 178 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2299, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2217 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2217 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Passage: H R 2216 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2216 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2216 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2216 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 171 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216; 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 171 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216; 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1088 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1836 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 153 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1836, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1836 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1 No Child Left Behind Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 143 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1646 Foreign Relations Authorization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On Passage: H R 1836 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1836 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 142 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1836, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1646 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1646 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1646 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1646 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 138 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1646; Foreign Relations Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 136 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H. Con. Res. 83, Congressional Budget for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 131 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 10 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Passage: H R 503 Unborn Victims of Violence Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
Lofgren Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 503 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Passage: H J RES 41 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Passage: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
Rangel Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 8 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 91 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the human rights situation in Cuba |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Passage: H R 6 Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6 Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
Rangel Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 104 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6; Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
Spratt Substitute Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 83 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
Stenholm Substitute Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 83 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
Kucinich Substitute Amendment: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 100 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 83; Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 93 Providing for consideration of H.R. 247; Tornado Shelters Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On Passage: H R 3 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: Amendment 1 to H R 3 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
Rangel of New York Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Passage: S J RES 6 Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, Relating to Ergonomics |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 79 Providing for consideration of S.J.Res. 6; Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Relating to Ergonomics |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On Passage: H R 333 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 333 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
Jackson-Lee of Texas Amendment Number 6: Amendment 5 to H R 333 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 71 Providing for consideration of H.R. 333; Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Adopting Rules for the One Hundred Seventh Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On Motion to Commit: H RES 5 Adopting Rules for the One Hundred Seventh Congress |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
Suspend the Rules and Agree to Senate Amendment: H R 4986 Foreign Sales Corporation (FCS) Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1972 Conveyance of Joe Rowell Park, Dolores, Colorado |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2594 Carriage of Nonproject Water by the Mancos Project, Colorado |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 591 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 590 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On hour of meeting: MOTION |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 663 Providing for consideration of S.2485; and Corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 2614 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 662 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 580 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 662 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 579 |
On hour of meeting: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4942 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2614 Small Business Investment Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 651 Providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 653 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4942; D.C. Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 653 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4942; D.C. Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 652 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2614 to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified development company program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 652 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2614 to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified development company program, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 646 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5375 Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 647 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany HR 4811 making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4271 National Science Education Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 634 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4656, Lake Tahoe Basin School Site Land Conveyance Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
On Passage: H J RES 114 Making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001, and for other purposes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 637 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution H.J. Res 114 making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 637 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution H.J. Res 114 making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4656 Conveyance of Certain Forest Service Land in the Lake Tahoe Basin |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5174 To remove the uncertainty regarding the authority of the Department of Defense to permit buildings located on military installations and reserve component facilities to be used as polling places in Federal, State, and local elections |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4461 Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 617 Waiving points of order against the conference report to H.R. 4461 making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
Passage, objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 4733 Making Appropriations for Energy and Water for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2438 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 612 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 4475, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4942 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4049 Privacy Commission Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4733 Making Appropriations for Energy and Water for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 598 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4733 making appropriations for Energy and Water for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5175 Small Business Liability Relief Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
Motion to Instruct Conferees, On Divided Portion No. 2: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended: H R 3986 Prosser Diversion Dam Study Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4516 Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Passage: H R 4942 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4942 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4942 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4986 Foreign Sales Corporation (FCS) Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4678 Child Support Distribution Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4678 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Passage: H R 4865 Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4865 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 565 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 4516, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 564 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4865; Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 568 Raising a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 563 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4942; Making Appropriations for the District of Columbia for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On Passage: H R 4871 Treasury - Postal Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4871 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4871 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4871 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4871 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4871 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4871 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 559 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 4810, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Passage: H R 4118 Russian-American Trust and Cooperation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4576 Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1102 Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1102 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On Passage: H J RES 103 Disapproving the Extension of the Waiver Authority Contained in Section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with Respect to the People?s Republic of China |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3125 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Passage: H R 4811 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4811 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4811 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4811 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4811 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 546 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4811, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Passage: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4810 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Passage: H R 4461 Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 4461 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4461 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 4461 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4461 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1304 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1304 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 542 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1304, Quality Health-Care Coalition Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 542 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1304, Quality Health-Care Coalition Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4425 Military Construction Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 538 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 4461, Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Passage: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
shall the use of an exhibit be permitted: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
Will the House now Consider the Resolution: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4733 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4733 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4733 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4733 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4733 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Passage: H R 4690 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4690 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 4690 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4690 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4690 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4690 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4690 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4690 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4690 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4690 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 529 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4690, Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4516 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 530 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4516; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Passage: H R 4635 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4635 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 4635 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4635 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4635 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4635 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4635 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4635 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4635 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 528 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res 90; Withdrawing the Approval of the Congress from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Passage: H R 4201 Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4201 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4635 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4635 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Passage: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 4578 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4578 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4578 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4578 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4578 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4578 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4578 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 525 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4635, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Passage: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4577 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4577 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4577 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4577 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4577 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4577 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4577 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4577 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Motion That Committee Rise: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Passage: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 8 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4577 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 519 Providing consideration of H.R 8; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and gift Taxes over a 10-year period |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 519 Providing consideration of H.R 8; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and gift Taxes over a 10-year period |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 518 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4577; Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for F.Y. 2001 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Passage: H R 4576 Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2001 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3605 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3605 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3605 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3916 To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Repeal the Excise Tax on Telephone and Other Communication Services |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 511 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 3916, to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Repeal the Excise Tax on Telephone and Other Communication Services |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Passage: H R 4444 To Authorize Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the People?s Republic of China |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4444 To Authorize Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the People?s Republic of China |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 510 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 4444, to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People?s Republic of China |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4392 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4475 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Passage: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4205 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4205 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4205 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4205 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 504 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4205, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 504 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4205, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4205 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4205 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4205 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4205 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 503 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4205; Defense Authorization for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Passage: H R 853 Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 853 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 853 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 853 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 853, Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 701 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 701 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 701 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Passage: H R 3709 Internet Nondiscrimination Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3709 Internet Nondiscrimination Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3709 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3709 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
Will the House now consider the bill: H R 3709 Internet Nondiscrimination Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 296 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the necessity to expedite the settlement process for discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture brought by African-American farmers |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 434 Trade and Development Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 488 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Passage: H R 3439 Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3439 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On Passage: H R 4199 Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4199 Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 474 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 290; The Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Passage: H J RES 94 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
Suspend the rules and pass: H R 4051 Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1776 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1776 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Passage: H R 3660 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3660 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 457 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3660; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Passage: H R 2418 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Amendments of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2418 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2418 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Passage: H R 3908 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3908 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 3908 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 3908 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3908 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3908 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3908 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3908 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 450 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3908; Making emergency supplemental appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 290 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 290 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 290 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On agreeing to the resolution, as amended: H RES 446 Providing for consideration of H. Con Res. 290 establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 446 Providing for consideration of H. Con Res. 290 establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for FY 2001 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 445 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3822; Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On Passage: S 1287 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
Commit with Instructions: S 1287 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
Will the House Consider the Bill: S 1287 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 444 Providing for consideration of S. 1287; Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 444 Providing for consideration of S. 1287; Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On Passage: H R 2372 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2372 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2372 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2372 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 441 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2372; Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Juvenile Justice Reform Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On Passage: H R 3846 To Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to Increase the Minimum Wage, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3846 To Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to Increase the Minimum Wage, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3846 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
Will The House Now Consider The Bill: H R 3846 To Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to Increase the Minimum Wage, and for other purposes |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Passage: H R 3081 Wage and Employment Growth Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3081 Wage and Employment Growth Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution as Amended: H RES 434 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3081 and H.R. 3846 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On Ordering Previous Question on Resolution as Amended: H RES 434 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3081 and H.R. 3846 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On Passage: H R 2366 Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2366 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 423 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2366; Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On Passage: H R 6 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6; Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On Passage: H R 2005 Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2990 Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On Passage: H R 1838 Taiwan Security Enhancement Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 609 |
On Motion to Recommit Conference Report: H R 3194 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 386 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 3194, D.C. Appropriations, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 602 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: MOTION Providing for consideration of H.J. Res 82; making further continuing appropriations for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 385 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res 82; making further continuing appropriations for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 590 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 374 Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
On Passage: H R 3073 Fathers Count Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3073 Fathers Count Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3073 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3073 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 367 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3073; Fathers Count Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 579 |
On Passage: H R 1714 Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1714 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 900 Financial Services Modernization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 569 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 355 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S.900; Financial Services Modernization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 568 |
Table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
Table appeal from ruling of chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: H CON RES 214 Expressing the Sense of Congress that Direct Systematic Phonics Instruction Should be Used in All Schools |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
On Passage: H R 3194 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 353 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
On Passage: H R 2389 County Schools Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2389 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2990 Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1714 Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3064 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 345 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 3064; District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
On Passage: H R 2260 Pain Relief Promotion Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2260 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2260 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 208 Expressing the sense of Congress that there should be no increase in Federal taxes in order to fund additional Government spending. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 532 |
On Passage: H R 2300 Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A?s Act) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2300 Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A?s Act) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2300 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 338 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2300; Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A?s Act) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2466 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 337 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2466; Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 335 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2670; Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 335 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2670; Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
Table Motion to Discharge Committee: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Passage: H R 3064 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 330 Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3064; District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2561 Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Passage: H R 2723 Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2723 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2723 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2723 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On Passage: H R 2990 Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2990 Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 323 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2990; Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2606 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2466 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 317 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 1906, Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On Passage: H R 2436 Unborn Victims of Violence Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2436 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2436 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On Passage: H R 1875 Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1875 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1875 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1875 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1875 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 295 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1875; Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Passage: H R 1402 Consolidation of Federal Milk Marketing Orders |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1431 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1059 DOD Authorization for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: S 1059 DOD Authorization for FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Passage: H R 417 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 417 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 417 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 417 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2587 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Passage: H R 2684 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2684 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2684 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 281 Providing for consideration of a motion to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2684 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2684 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2684 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2684 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2684 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
Sustaining Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 275 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2684; V.A., HUD Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Passage: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2670 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2670 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 274 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2488; Financial Freedom Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments: H R 1664 Kosovo and Southwest Asia Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2670 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 273 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2670; Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Passage: H R 987 Workplace Preservation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Passage: H R 2031 Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Engrossment and Third Reading: H R 2031 Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2606 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 900 Financial Services Modernization Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2606 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2606 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2606 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2606 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 263 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2606; Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2587 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2587 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2587 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2605 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 260 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2587; District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Passage: H J RES 57 Disapprove Normal Trade Relations with China |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Passage: H R 1074 Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1074 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Passage: H R 2561 Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Passage: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2488 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 256 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2488; Financial Freedom Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2415 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2415 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2415 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2415 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2415 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Passage: H R 1995 Teacher Empowerment Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 253 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1995; Teacher Empowerment Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2415 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2415 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Passage: H R 434 African Growth and Opportunity Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 250 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 434, African Growth and Opportunity Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Passage: H R 2490 Treasury and General Appropriations Act, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2490 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2490 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2490 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Passage: H R 1691 Religious Liberty Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1691 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2466 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2466 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2466 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2466 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2466 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2466 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Passage: H R 10 Financial Services Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 Financial Services Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 10 Financial Services Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 10 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 1059 DOD Authorization for FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 235 Providing for consideration of H.R. 10; Financial Services Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Passage: H R 1218 Child Custody Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1218 Child Custody Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 94 Recognizing the Need for Reconciliation and Healing and Prayer |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Passage: H J RES 33 Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the United States Flag |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 33 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2084 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2084 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Passage: H R 2122 Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2122 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2122 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2122 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2122 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2122 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2122 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2122 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Passage: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 1501 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 1501 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1501 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1501 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 209 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1501, Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act, and H.R. 2122, Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1000 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1000 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Passage: H R 1905 Legislative Branch Approriations Act for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1905 Legislative Branch Approriations Act for FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1905 Legislative Branch Approriations Act for FY 2000 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
table motion to reconsider: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 190 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1905; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
table motion to reconsider: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 190 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
table motion to reconsider: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 190 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1905; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Passage: H R 1401 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1401 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1401 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 200 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1401; National Defense Authorization Act for F.Y. 2000 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Passage: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1906 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1906 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 35 Adjournment of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1259 Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 186 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1259, Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1906 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1906 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1906 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment: H R 4 National Missile Defense System |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 883 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 883 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 180 Providing for consideration of H.R. 883; American Land Sovereignty Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On Passage: H R 1654 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1654 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1654 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 173 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1141; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1555 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On Passage: H R 775 Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 775 Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 775 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 775 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 775 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 166 Providing for consideration of H.R. 775; Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Passage: H R 1664 Kosovo and Southwest Asia Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1664 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 159 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1664; Making emergency supplemental appropriations relating to the conflict in Kosovo |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On Passage: H R 833 Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 833 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 833 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 833 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 833 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 158 Providing for Consideration of the Bill H.R. 833, Bankruptcy Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 21 Authorizing the President of the United States to Conduct Military Air Operations and Missile Strikes Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 82 Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Passage: H R 1569 Military Operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Limitation Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 151 Providing for Consideration of Certain Bills and Resolutions Concerning the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 800 Education Flexibility Partnership Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On Passage: H J RES 37 Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States With Respect to Tax Limitations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Passage: H R 472 Local Census Quality Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 472 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 138 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 472, Local Census Quality Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 138 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 472, Local Census Quality Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 68 Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 137 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report H. Con. Res 68, Congressional Budget for U.S.Government for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 68 Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 68 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 131 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 131 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Passage: H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1141 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 101 Committee Funding Resolution for the 106th Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 101 Committee Funding Resolution for the 106th Congress |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 800 Education Flexibility Partnership Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 121 Affirming the Congress? Opposition to All Forms of Racism and Bigotry |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On Passage: H R 4 National Missile Defense System |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 National Missile Defense System |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 120 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4; National Missile Defense System |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On Passage: H R 975 Provide for a Reduction in the Volume of Steel Imports |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 42 Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 42 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
Sustain the ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 103 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 42; Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 103 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 42; Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Passage: H R 800 Education Flexibility Partnership Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 800 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 800 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 800 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 100 Providing for consideration of H.R. 800; Education Flexibility Partnership Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On Passage: H R 391 Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 391 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Passage: H R 350 Mandates Information Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 350 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 350 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 10 Appointment of Managers to Conduct an Impeachment Trial |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Sixth Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Motion to Commit with Instructions: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Sixth Congress |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Sixth Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 614 Appointment of Managers |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
Adopting the Fourth Article: Amendment 4 to H RES 611 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
Adopting the Third Article: Amendment 3 to H RES 611 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
Adopting the Second Article: Amendment 2 to H RES 611 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
Adopting the First Article: Amendment 1 to H RES 611 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
Table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 604 Providing for the consideration of S. 1132 and S. 2133 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 605 Waiving points of order against the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4328 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1132 Bandelier National Monument Administrative Improvement and Watershed Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2133 To preserve the cultural resources of the Route 66 corridor |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3963 Sell Canyon Ferry Reservoir Cabins |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
Suspend the Rules and Agree to Conference Report: S 1260 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 2095 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 350 Calling Upon the President to Respond to the Significant Increase of Steel Imports |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 852 National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 588 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4761; Uruguay Round Agreements Compliance Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 589 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
Table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 331 Expressing the sense of Congress Concerning the Inadequacy of Sewage Infrastructute Facilities in Tijuana, Mexico |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4274 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
table motion to reconsider: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
table motion to reconsider: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 581 Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 581 Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4104 Treasury, Postal Service, Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY 1999 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 4104 Treasury, Postal Service, Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 579 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 4104 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Passage: H R 4570 Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 573 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4570; Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3694 FY 1999 Intelligence Authorization |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 3694 FY 1999 Intelligence Authorization |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4259 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 575 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committtee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1154 Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4614 New Hampshire Land Conveyance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions: H R 4101 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 564 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4274; Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Motion to Go to Conference: S 2073 Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3891 Trademark Anticounterfeiting Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Passage: H R 4579 Taxpayer Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4579 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Passage: H R 2621 Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 553 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2621 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Passage: H R 4578 Protect Social Security Account |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4578 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 552 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4578 and H.R. 4579 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 552 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4578 and H.R. 4579 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On Passage: H R 3736 Workforce Improvement and Protection Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3736 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3616 National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1999 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 545 Impeachment of Kenneth W. Starr |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
On Passage: H R 3248 To Provide Dollars to the Classroom |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3248 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3248 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Passage: H R 4569 Foreign Operations Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4569 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4569 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 542 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4569; Foreign Operations Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4550 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Passage: H R 4300 Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4300 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4300 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4300 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4300 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 2073 Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H J RES 117 Expressing the Sense of Congress that Marijuana is a Dangerous and Addictive Drug and Should not be Legalized for Medicinal Use |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4328 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 1999 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 525 Providing for a deliberative review by the Committee on the Judiciary of a communication from an independent counsel, and for the release thereof |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Passage: H R 3892 English Language Fluency Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3892 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3892 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Passage: H R 2538 Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims of 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Passage: H R 2863 Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Passage: H R 4380 District of Columbia Appropriations for FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4380 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4380 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4380 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4380 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4380 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4380 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4380 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4380 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4380 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 517 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4380, District of Columbia Appropriations for FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On Passage: H R 2183 Campaign Finance Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Passage: H R 4276 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4276 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4276 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 2 to H R 2183 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On agreeing to the resolution, as amended: H RES 507 Providing special investigative authority for the Committee on Education and the Workforce |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Passage: H J RES 120 Disapproval of Presidential Waiver for Vietnam |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Passage: H R 4194 VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4194 VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY 1999 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4194 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4194 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4194 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4194 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 629 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 511 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 629 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Passage: H R 4250 Patient Protection Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4250 Patient Protection Act |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4250 Patient Protection Act |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4250 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 509 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4250; Patient Protection Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4194 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4194 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Passage: H R 4193 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4193 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4193 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4193 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4193 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
Motion to Discharge the Committee: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4193 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1689 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Passage: H J RES 121 To Disapprove Most-Favored-Nation Treatment to China |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4193 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4193 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4193 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 504 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4193; Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 504 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4193; Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2183 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2183 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2183 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2183 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4194 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4194 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Passage: H R 4104 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4104 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4104 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4104 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4104 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4104 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4104 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 501 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4194, VA, HUD Approriations, FY 99 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 498 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4101; Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 498 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4101; Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Passage: H R 3267 Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3267 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Passage: H R 3682 Child Custody Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3682 Child Custody Protection Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3682, Child Custody Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3682, Child Custody Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2183 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: H R 2676 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Passage: H R 4112 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1999 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4112 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1999 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 489 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4112; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 489 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4112; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 491 Providing for the consideration of an adjournment resolution |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Passage: H R 4103 Defense Appropriations Act for F.Y. 1999 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 484 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4103; Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4101 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4101 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4101 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4060 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 477 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4059; Military Construction Appropriations for F.Y. 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 458 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 2183 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 458 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 2183 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 476 Providing for consideration of H.Res. 463; To establish the Select Committee on U.S. National Security regarding the People?s Republic of China |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2183 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Passage: H R 3097 Tax Code Termination Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3097 Tax Code Termination Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 471 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2646; Education Savings Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 472 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3097; Tax Code Termination Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 472 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3097; Tax Code Termination Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3494 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Passage: H R 2888 Sales Incentive Compensation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2888 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Passage: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3150 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3150 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3150 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3150 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3150 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 462 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3150, Bankruptcy Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 462 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3150, Bankruptcy Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 462 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3150, Bankruptcy Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 284 Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 284 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 284 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 284; Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 285 Sense of Congress Regarding Tiananmen Square |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Passage: H J RES 78 Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 78 Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 453 Providing for consideration of H.J.Res. 78; Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution As Amended: H RES 446 Disposing of the Conference Report to Accompany S. 1150 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 442 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 119 and H.R. 2183, Campaign Finance Reform. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Passage: H R 3616 National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3616 National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1999 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3616 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3616 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 433 Calling upon the President to Cooperate with Congressional Investigations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 432 Expressing the Sense of the House Concerning the President?s Assertions of Executive Privilege |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3616 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3616 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 441 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 3616 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 441 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 3616 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3809 Drug Free Borders Act of 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
Suspend the rules and pass: H R 3718 Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts with Respect to Prison Release Orders |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Passage: H R 3534 Mandates Information Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3534 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3534 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3534 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3534 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On motion to table: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Passage: H R 10 Financial Services Competition Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 10 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 10 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 10 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 428 Providing for consideration of H.R. 10; Financial Services Competition Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3694 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 414 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Passage: S 1502 District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On motion to commit: S 1502 District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 413 Providing for consideration of S. 1502; District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3546 National Dialogue on Social Security and establishment of Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On Passage: H R 3717 Prohibit Federal Funds for Needle Distribution Programs |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3717 Prohibit Federal Funds for Needle Distribution Programs |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1252 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1252 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1252 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1252 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1252 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1252 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Passage: H J RES 111 Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States with Respect to Tax Limitations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2400 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2400 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 257 Providiing for an adjournment of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Passage: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
Motion For A Secret Session: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 402 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3579; Emergency Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2608 Paycheck Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Passage: H R 2515 Forest Recovery and Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2515 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On Passage: H R 3246 Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 393 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3246 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 385 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1757, State Department Authorization |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Passage: H R 3310 Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3310 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3310 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2589 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2589 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 227 Directing the President to Remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On Passage: H R 992 Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 992 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Passage: H R 2883 Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On Passage: H R 1432 African Growth and Opportunity Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1432 African Growth and Opportunity Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1432 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1432 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 383 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1432 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Passage: H R 856 United States - Puerto Rico Political Status Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On agreeing to the amendment, as amended: Amendment 1 to H R 856 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 856 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 856 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 1 to H R 856 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 856 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On Passage: H R 1544 Federal Agency Compliance Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Passage: H R 2181 Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2181 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1544 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 424 To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1428 Voter Eligibility Verification Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 355 Dismissing the election contest against Loretta Sanchez |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 352 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On Passage: H R 2846 Prohibition on Federal Education Funds on National Testing |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 348 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2846 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On Passage: H J RES 107 A Resolution Concerning Attorneys? Fees, Costs, and Sanctions Payable by the White House Health Care Task Force |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Passage: H R 2625 To Redesignate Washington National Airport as ?Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2625 To Redesignate Washington National Airport as ?Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?. |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2625 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 344 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2625, to redesignate Washington National Airport as ?Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport? |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 341 Relating to a question of the privileges of the House. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 639 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 638 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 68 Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 636 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 330 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2267; Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 634 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 326 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 633 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 326 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 632 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 301 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to repeal the exception to the requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all the media. |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 314 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 311 Providing for consideration of certain resolutions in preparation for the adjournment of the first session sine die |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 627 |
On motion to suspend the rules and pass: H R 2920 U.S.-Canadian Border Controls |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 622 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 318 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 621 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 315 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 618 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2534 Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 612 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2616 Charter Schools Amendments Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2616 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 609 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2616 Charter Schools Amendments Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2616 Charter Schools Amendments Act |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 858 Intelligence Authorization, FY 1998 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 604 |
Table motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair: H R 2605 Communist China Subsidy Reduction Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 602 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2386 United States-Taiwan Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 601 |
On Passage: H R 2386 United States-Taiwan Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
On motion to table the motion to reconsider: H R 2570 Forced Abortion Condemnation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 967 Prohibiting Certain Chinese Government and Religious Officials from Participating in International Conferences |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 593 |
On motion to table the motion to reconsider: H RES 188 Acquisition By Iran of C-802 Cruise Missiles |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 590 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 307 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2195 Enforce Ban on Slave Labor Products |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 302 Providing for consideration of nine measures relating to the policy of the United States with respect to the People?s Republic of China |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 948 Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1839 National Salvage Vehicle Consumer Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
Suspend the rules and pass: H R 2644 U.S. Caribbean Trade Partnership Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 569 |
On Passage: H R 2746 Helping Empower Low-Income Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 568 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2746 Helping Empower Low-Income Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 288 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 288 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 297 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 296 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 295 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 294 Question of the Priveleges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 561 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 293 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 292 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 291 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 290 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
On Passage: H R 1270 Nuclear Waste Policy Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1270 Nuclear Waste Policy Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1270 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1270 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1270 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1270 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 550 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1270 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
On Passage: H R 2493 Forage Improvement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2493 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 547 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2493 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2493 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 284 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2493; Forage Improvement Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
Question on Consideration: H R 1270 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
Suspend the rules and agree, as amended: H RES 139 Dollars to Classroom Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 287 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 283 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1270, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1119 National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 278 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1119, National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2107 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2247 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 277 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2107; Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 276 Privileges of the House |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Passage: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2646 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2646; Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 270 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2247 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Passage: H R 1534 Private Property Rights Implementation Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1534 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 265 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2204, Coast Guard Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2607 District of Columbia Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
On Passage: H R 2607 District of Columbia Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2607 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 511 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2607 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1757 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY?s 1998 and 1999 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Passage: H R 901 American Land Sovereignty Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 901 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 901 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 901 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
Agree to Senate Amendments: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 262 Providing for the consideration of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 1122, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 901 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Passage: H R 629 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2159 Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Passage: H R 1127 National Monument Fairness Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1127 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1127 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On motion to suspend the rules and pass: H R 1262 SEC Authorization |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On motion to suspend the rules and pass: H R 1476 Miccosuke Settlement Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 2007 Canadian River Reclamation Project |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 2233 Coral Reef Conservation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
Suspend the rules and agree, as amended: H CON RES 131 Sense of Congress Regarding the Oceans |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
On motion to suspend rules and pass: S 1161 Refugee Assistance Authorization |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 244 Subpoena Enforcement in the Case of Dornan v. Sanchez |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 253 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 244, Subpoena Enforcement in the Case of Dornan v. Sanchez |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Passage: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2267 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2378 Treasury, Postal Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1370 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1370 Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1370 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2267 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2267 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2267 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2267 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 448 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2267 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2267 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2267 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2267 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2266 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 238 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 2209 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
Table Reconsider Ordering Yeas and Nays on Adjourn: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 168 Ethics Reform Task Force Recommendations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 168 Ethics Reform Task Force Recommendations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H RES 168 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H RES 168 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H RES 168 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 230 Providing for consideration of H.Res. 168; Ethics Reform Task Force Recommendations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Passage: H R 2378 Treasury, Postal Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 399 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 228 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2016, Military Construction Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2264 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2264 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
Motion to instruct conferees: H R 1119 National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2159 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2159 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2159 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2159 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2159 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2159 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2209 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2014 Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2159 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2015 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 202 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 2015, The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 201 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 201 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1348 Relating to War Crimes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Passage: H R 2266 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2266 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2266 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Passage: H R 2209 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2209 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2209 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2209 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2203 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2203 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 197 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2209; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 197 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2209; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2160 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
strike the enacting clause: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2160 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2160 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2160 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2160 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2160 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 193 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 2160; Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Ordering the Previous Question on the Amendment: H RES 193 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 2160; Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: H RES 175 Violence in the Republic of Congo |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1853 Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1853 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1853 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
Table reconsider resolving into Committee: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On resolving into Committee: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2158 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2158 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2158 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Passage: H R 2107 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1998 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2107 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2107 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 271 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2107 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2107 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2107 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2107 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2107 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2107 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2107 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2107 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 181 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2107, Interior Appropriations Act for FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
Motion to Insruct Conferees: H R 2014 Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1775 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1775 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1775 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On Passage: H R 2014 Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2014 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 176 Providing for Consideration of an Adjournment Resolution |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Passage: H R 2015 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Motion to Recommit With Instructions: H R 2015 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 174 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and H.R. 2014, Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 174 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and H.R. 2014, Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Passage: H R 1119 National Defense Authorization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1119 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1119 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1119 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Passage: H J RES 79 Disapproving the Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Most-Favored-Treatment) to the Products of the People?s Republic of China |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1119 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1119 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1119 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1119 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1119 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1119 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1119 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 167 Providing special investigative authorities for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 167 Providing special investigative authorities for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1119 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1119 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Passage: H J RES 54 Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 1757 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 1757 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1757 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 1757 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1757 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1757 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 1757 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
Previous Question on Motion to Refer Veto Message: H R 1469 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1469 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1757 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 84 Congressional Budget Resolution for FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 160 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Reprt on H. Con. Res. 84 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1757 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1757 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 159 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1757; Foreign Relations Authorization Act and for considerations of H.R. 1758; The European Security Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 159 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1757; Foreign Relations Authorization Act and for considerations of H.R. 1758; The European Security Act of 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Passage: H R 408 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 153 Providing for consideration of H.R. 408; International Dolphin Conservation Program Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 84 Congressional Budget Resolution for FY 1998 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 84 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 84 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 84 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 84 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 84 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 152 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 84; Congressional Budget |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 152 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 84; Congressional Budget |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1385 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Passage: H R 1469 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1469 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1469; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1469; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On Passage: H R 2 Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 146 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1469; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 118 |
On Passage: H R 3 Juvenile Crime Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3 Juvenile Crime Control Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 143 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3; Juvinile Crime Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 478 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
Question of Consideration of the Committee Substitute Amendment: H R 2 Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 129 Committee Funding Resolution |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1342 Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1275 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 400 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 400 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 400 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 400 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
table motion to proceed in order: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
strike the words from the record: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 112 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On Passage: H J RES 62 Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 107 Providng for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 91 House Committees Funding Resolution |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 91 House Committees Funding Resolution |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 105 Providing for consideration of H. Res. 91, Committee Funding for the 105th Congress. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 101 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91), House Committees Funding Resolution |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Passage: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
table appeal of the ruling of the Chair: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 100 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1122, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 100 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1122, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On Passage: H R 1 Working Families Flexibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 99 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, Working Families Flexibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 412 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 88 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 852; Paperwork Reduction Amendments |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On Passage: H J RES 58 Disapprove Certification of Mexico |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 58 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 58 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 95 Providing for consideration of H.J.Res. 58; Disapprove Certification of Mexico |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 89 Request New Balanced Budget from the President |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 89 Request New Balanced Budget from the President |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 90 Providing for the consideration of H.Res. 89; Request New Balanced Budget from the President |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 90 Providing for the consideration of H.Res. 89; Request New Balanced Budget from the President |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
Suspend the rules and agree: H CON RES 31 Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the display of the Ten Commandments by Judge Roy S. Moore, a judge on the circuit court of the State of Alabama |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Passage: H R 581 Funds Appropriated for Population Planning |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Passage: H J RES 36 Approving the Presidential Finding Regarding International Family Planning Programs |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Passage: H J RES 2 Term Limits Constitutional Amendment |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 3 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On motion to commit with instructions: H RES 5 Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
table appeal of the ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 546 Consideration of Sine Die Resolutions |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
Suspend the rules and pass: H R 3163 State Authority Tax Compensation Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
Suspend the rules and pass: S 1505 Accountable Pipline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 447 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4073 National Underground Railroad Freedom Center |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3539 Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 540 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 3539 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 444 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3841 Civil Service Reform Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3752 American Land Sovereignty Protection Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Passage: H R 4134 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize States to deny public education benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the U.S. who are not enrolled in public schools during the period beginning September 1, 1996, and ending July 1, 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
Recommit conference report with instructions: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 528 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2202; Immigration and Nationality Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 532 Question of the Privileges of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 525 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On motion to table: H RES 526 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Motion to Discharge the Judiciary Committee: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3803 George Bush School of Government and Public Service |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On Passage: H R 3308 United States Armed Forces Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3308 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 508 Providing for consideration of a certain motion to suspend the rules. (Relating to combating terrorism) |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On agreeing to the conference report: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
Recommit conference report with instructions: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Passage: H R 123 English Language Empowerment Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 123 English Language Empowerment Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 123 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 388 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 123 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Passage: H R 2823 Marine Mammal Protection Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2823 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3734 Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 495 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 495 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
Table the Motion to Reconsider: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Passage: H R 2391 Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 203 Providing for an Adjounment of Both Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 488 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2391; Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Passage: H R 3820 Campaign Finance Reform Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3820 Campaign Finance Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3820 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 481 Providing for consideration of H.R, 3820; Campaign Finance Reform Act |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3816 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3816 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3816 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3816 |
Y | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3816 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Passage: H R 3814 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary Appropriation, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 3814 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 3814 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3814 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3814 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3814 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3814 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3814 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3814 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3845 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3845 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
On Passage: H R 3734 Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3734 Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3734 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 482 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3734 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Passage: H R 3756 Treasury, Postal Sevice, Executive Office of the President, Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3756 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3756 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
Strike the enacting clause: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3756 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3756 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Passage: H R 3396 Defense of Marriage Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3396 Defense of Marriage Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3396 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Passage: H R 3755 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations for FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 3755 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3755 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 304 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3755 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 474 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3396; Defense of Marriage Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 472 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3755, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3754 Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3754 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3754 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3675 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3675 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3675 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3675 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 468 Privilege of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 465 Providing for the consideration of an adjournment resolution |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Passage: H J RES 182 Disapproving most-favored-nation treatment to the products of the People?s Republic of China |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Passage: H R 3666 VA-HUD Appropriations, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3666 VA-HUD Appropriations, FY 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 3666 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3666 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3666 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3666 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3666 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3666 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 456 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3666, VA-HUD Appropriations, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Passage: H R 3662 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 3662 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 3662 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3662 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3662 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3662 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Passage: H R 3610 Fiscal Year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3610 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3610 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3610 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3610 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3610 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3610 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3610 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 178 Congressional Budget For U.S. Government |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 235 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 450 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 178; Budget for U.S. Government for F.Y. 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Passage: H R 3603 FY 1997 Agriculture Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3603 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3603 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3603 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3540 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Passage: H R 3562 Waivers for Wisconsin Welfare Plan |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3562 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 446 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3562; Waivers for Wisconsin Welfare Plan |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3540 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3540 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3540 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3540 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 178 Congressional Budget For U.S. Government |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3322 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3322 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3517 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Passage: H R 1227 Employee Commuting Act |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Agreeing to Subsection D of the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1227 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On agreeing to Subsecs. A, B, & C of the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1227 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1227 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
Question of consideration of the amendment: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 440 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3448; Small Business Job Protection Act and H.R. 1227; Employee Commuting Flexibility Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3259 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3259 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3259 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3259 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Passage: H R 3415 Gas Tax Increase Repeal |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3415 Gas Tax Increase Repeal |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 436 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3415; Gas Tax Increase Repeal |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 178 Congressional Budget For U.S. Government |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 178 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 178 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 435 Providing for the further consideration of H. Con. Res. 178, Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Passage: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3230 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3230 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 303 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1745 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3230 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 430 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3230; Defense Authorization for F.Y. 1997 |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3286 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 956 Product Liability Reform |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Passage: H R 2406 United States Housing Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2406 United States Housing Act of 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2406 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2406 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2406 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
Committees to sit: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2406 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 426 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2406, U.S. Housing Act of 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 417 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Select Subcomittee on the U. S. role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia of the Committee on International Relations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 416 Establishing a select subcomittee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the U. S. role in Iranian arms transfers to Croatia and Bosnia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 150 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 416 Establishing a select subcomittee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the U. S. role in Iranian arms transfers to Croatia and Bosnia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2974 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Passage: H R 2149 Ocean Shipping Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2149 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 418 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2641, United States Marshals Service Improvement Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
Passage, Objection of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 412 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 412 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On Passage: H R 1675 National Wildlife Refuge Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 735 Anti-Terrorism Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 405 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 735; Anti-Terrorism Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 405 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 735; Anti-Terrorism Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Passage: H J RES 159 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
table motion to reconsider: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
Consideration of H.J. Res. 159, as Amended: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 956 Product Liability Reform |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 394 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 956; Product Liability Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2854 Agricultural Market Transition Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Passage: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3103 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 392 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3103, Health Coverage Availabilty and Affordability Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Passage: H R 3136 Debt Limit Extension |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3136 Debt Limit Extension |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
Consideration of Motion to Recommit With Instructions: H R 3136 Debt Limit Extension |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On agreeing to the resolution, as amended: H RES 391 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3136; Debt Limit Extension |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 391 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3136; Debt Limit Extension |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
Agree to Senate Amendments: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 389 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1833) to ban partial birth abortions |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On Passage: H R 125 Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 388 Providing for the consideration of H.R.125, Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3019 Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Passage: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2202 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2202 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2202 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On Passage: H J RES 165 Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 165 Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 386 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 165, Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 386 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 165, Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2202 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2202 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2202 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2202 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2202 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2202 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 384 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2202, Immigration and National Interest Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On Passage: H R 2703 To Combat Terrorism |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2703 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2703 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Passage: H J RES 163 Making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2703 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 380 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2703; Anti-Terrorism Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 375 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1561, American Overseas Interests Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On Passage: H R 3019 Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3019 Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3019 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 52 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3019 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3019 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 372 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3019; Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 372 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 927 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 370 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 927; Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 956 Product Liability Reform |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
On Passage: H R 2854 Agricultural Market Transition Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2854 Agricultural Market Transition Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2854 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2854 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2854 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 366 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2854, Agricutural Market Transition Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 31 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 366 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2854, Agricutural Market Transition Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 141 Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 355 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2924; Social Security Benefits |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 353 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 652; Telecommunications Reform Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2546 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2546 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Passage: H R 2880 Making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a downpayment toward a balanced budget |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2880 Making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a downpayment toward a balanced budget |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 342 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1124 National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 338 Providing for the disposition of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1358, Targeted Continuing Appropriations and Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory Transfer |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 336 Providing for the dispostion of the Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 134; making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 330 Authorize the Speaker to Declare Recesses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 334 Providing for consideration of a motion to dispose of Senate amendment (Continuing Appropriations) to H.R. 1643; Bulgaria |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
Passage, objections of the President notwithstanding: H R 1977 Interior Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
Passage, Objection of the President Notwithstanding: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
Passage, the Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1530 National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 2 |
Table appeal of the ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 885 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 136 Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 884 |
table the appeal of the ruling of the chair: H RES 321 Directing the committee on rules to report a resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 2530 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 883 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 299 Amending the Rules of the House |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 882 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 299 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 879 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 320 Authorize Speaker to Declare Recesses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 878 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 320 Authorize Speaker to Declare Recesses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 877 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 876 |
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 875 |
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 873 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 134 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 872 |
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H J RES 134 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 871 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 317 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 134; Making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 870 |
Passage, objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 868 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 309 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 122; Revised Congressional Budget for 7 years |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 867 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 309 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 122; Revised Congressional Budget for 7 years |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 866 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H J RES 132 Achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 865 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1530 Defense Department Authorization, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 864 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 307 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1530; Department of Defense Authorization for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 863 |
Motion to declare recesses: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 861 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2621 Prevent Disinvestment of Trust Funds |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 860 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 293 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2621; Enforce Public Debt Limit and Protect Federal Trust Funds |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 859 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 293 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2621; Enforce Public Debt Limit and Protect Federal Trust Funds |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 858 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 306 Deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 857 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 302 Relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 856 |
On Passage: H R 2770 To prohibit Federal funds from being used for deployment on the ground of U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 855 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 304 Providing for debate and consideration of three measures relating to U,S. troop deployments in Bosnia |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 854 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 853 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 852 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 301 Waiving points of order against the further conference report on H.R. 1977, Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 851 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 297 Waiving a rerquirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to certain resolutions reported fromm the Committee on Rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 850 |
Recede from H.amendment to S.amendment #115 w/adt: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 849 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 296 Providing for consideration of a motion to dispose of the remaining Senate amendment to H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 846 |
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 2677 Use of State Employees and Services in National Parks During Government Shutdowns |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 844 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 843 |
Recommit the Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 842 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 291 Waiving points of order against further consideration of the Conference Report on H.R. 2099; VA HUD Appropriations for F.Y. 1966 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 841 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 840 |
Recommit the Conference Report with instructions: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 839 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 838 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 290 Waiving points of order against the Conference Report on H.R. 1058; Federal Securities Litigation |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 833 |
On motion to table: H RES 288 Priviledges of the House |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 831 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1788 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 830 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1788 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 829 |
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 827 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2564 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 826 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2564 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 825 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2564 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 824 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2564 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 820 |
On motion to agree to Senate Amendment: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 817 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 275 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 816 |
on motion to proceed in order: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 815 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 277 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 814 |
On Passage: H R 2606 Prohibition on Funds for Bosnia Deployment |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 813 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 273 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2606; Prohibition on Funds for Bosnia Deployment |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 812 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 810 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 272 Authorizing a specified correction in the form of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2491; Budget Reconciliation for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 806 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 805 |
Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 804 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 271 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2126; Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 803 |
table the appeal of ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 802 |
On Passage: H J RES 122 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 801 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 122 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 800 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 270 Providing for consideration of H.J.Res. 122; Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 799 |
Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 798 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 253 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1977 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 797 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2020 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1996 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 796 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 267 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2020; Treasury - Postal Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 795 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 267 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2020; Treasury - Postal Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 794 |
disagree to S.adt. to H. adt. to S. adt # 115: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 792 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2539 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 791 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2621 Prevent Disinvestment of Trust Funds |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 790 |
Postpone consideration of Veto Message to a date certain: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 788 |
Postpone Veto to a date certain: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 787 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 786 |
On Motion to Dispose of Senate Amendments En Bloc: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 785 |
On Motion to Agree to the Senate Amendment: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 784 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 261 Providing for the consideration of Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 115 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 783 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 262 Providing for the consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 2586 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 781 |
On Passage: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 780 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 779 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 778 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 258 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Temporary Increase in Public Debt Limit |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 777 |
Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 956 Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 775 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 774 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 773 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 257 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res 115; Further Continuing Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 772 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 395 Alaska North Slope Oil |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 771 |
On motion to recommit the Conference Report: S 395 Alaska North Slope Oil |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 770 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 256 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 395; Alaska Power Administration Sale Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 764 |
On Passage: H R 2546 District of Columbia Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 763 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2546 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 762 |
motion to instruct conferees: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 761 |
previous question on motion to instruct conferees: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 759 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2546 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 758 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2546 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 757 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 252 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2546; District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 756 |
On Passage: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 754 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 251 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1833 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 753 |
Recede And Concur With Amendment In Senate Amendment No. 115: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 751 |
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 750 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 249 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1868; Foreign Assistance Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 749 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 249 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1868; Foreign Assistance Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 747 |
On Passage: H R 2492 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 746 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 239 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2492, Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 745 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 247 Sense of Congress relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 744 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 743 |
On Passage: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 742 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 739 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 245 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 109; Social Security Earnings Test Reform and further consideration of the bill H.R. 2491; Budget Reconciliation for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 738 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 245 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 109; Social Security Earnings Test Reform and further consideration of the bill H.R. 2491; Budget Reconciliation for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 737 |
On Motion to Table: H RES 244 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 731 |
On Passage: H R 2425 Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 730 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2425 Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 729 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2425 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 727 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 238 Providing for the connsideration of H.R. 2425; Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 726 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 238 Providing for the connsideration of H.R. 2425; Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 725 |
On Passage: H R 2259 To disapprove certain sentencing guideline amendments |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 724 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2259 To disapprove certain sentencing guideline amendments |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 723 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2259 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 721 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 717 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 39 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 713 |
On Passage: H R 2405 Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 712 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 711 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 710 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 709 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 708 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1976 Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 707 |
Motion to recommit Conference Report with instructions: H R 1976 Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 706 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 703 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2405 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 702 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 701 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2405 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 699 |
Recommit the Conference Report with instructions: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriationms, FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 696 |
Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 695 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 231 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1977; Department of Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 694 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 232 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2126; Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 693 |
On Passage: H R 1170 Three Judge review of State passed referendums |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 692 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1170 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 691 |
On Passage: H R 743 Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 690 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 743 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 689 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 743 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 688 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 743 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 686 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 226 Providing for consideration of H.R. 743; Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 683 |
On Passage: H R 927 Cuban liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 682 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 927 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 681 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 225 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 927; Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 680 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1817 Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 678 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2274 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 677 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2274 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 676 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2274 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 674 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 224 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2274; National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 673 |
Committees to sit: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 671 |
On Passage: H R 1617 Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 670 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1617 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 669 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 558 Texas Low-Level radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 667 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 260 National Park System Reform Act |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 662 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 660 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1670 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 658 |
On Passage: H R 1162 Deficit Reduction Lock-Box Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 657 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1162 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 656 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1162 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 655 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1655 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 654 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1655 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 652 |
On Passage: H R 1594 Restrictions on Promotion by the Government of Use by Employee Benefit Plans of Economically Targeted Investments |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 651 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1594 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 650 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1594 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 649 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1594 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 646 |
On Passage: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 645 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2126 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 644 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2126 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 643 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2126 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 642 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2126 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 641 |
On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2126 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 640 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2126 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 639 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2126 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 638 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 637 |
On Motion to Recommit Conference Report: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 636 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 206 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1854; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 635 |
On Passage: H R 1555 Communications Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 634 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1555 Communications Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 633 |
On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1555 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 632 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1555 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 630 |
On agreeing to the Amendment, as modified: Amendment 3 to H R 1555 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 628 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1555 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 626 |
On Passage: H R 2127 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 625 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2127 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 624 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2127 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 623 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2127 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 622 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2127 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 620 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2127 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 619 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2127 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 618 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2127 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 617 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 616 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 207 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1555; Communications Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2127 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 614 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2127 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2127 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 612 |
On agreeing to the Amendments en bloc: Amendment 4 to H R 2127 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2127 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 208 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2127; Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 609 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On Passage: S 21 Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of 1995 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
On Passage: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 603 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 602 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 598 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 597 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 596 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 594 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 593 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 592 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2099 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 590 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2099 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 201 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2099: VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Passage: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 583 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2076 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 580 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2076 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2076 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 575 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 574 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 573 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 572 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 571 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2076 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
On Passage: H R 2002 Transportation Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 569 |
Sustain the ruling of the chair: MOTION |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 567 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2002 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2002 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 395 Alaska North Slope Oil |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Passage: H R 1943 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1943 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 558 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
On Passage: H R 70 To permit exports of certain domestically produced crude oil, and for other purposes. |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 70 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 70 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
On Passage: H R 1976 Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 549 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 548 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1976 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 546 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 194 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2002; Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 545 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 543 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 542 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1976 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1976 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 539 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1976 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Motion to Table: H J RES 96 Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the People?s Republic of China |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1976 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Passage: H R 2020 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2020 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 531 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2020 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2020 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2020 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2020 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2020 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 526 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2020 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 188 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1976; Agriculture Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
On Passage: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 521 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 520 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 519 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 516 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 190 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2020, Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 514 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 513 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1977 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 510 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 509 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 506 |
On Motion that the Committee rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
On motion the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1977 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1977 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 499 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 187 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1977; Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 187 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1977; Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 185 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 185 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 493 |
sustain the ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 492 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1905 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1905 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
Table motion to reconsider: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
Permit Committees To Sit: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 183 Election to the Committee on Ways and Means |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 183 Election to the Committee on Ways and Means |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 183 Election to the Committee on Ways and Means |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 183 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 472 |
Lay the Resolution on the Table: H RES 183 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 183 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
Question of Consideration: H RES 183 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 179 Providing for the consideration of S.Con.Res. 20: Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 483 Expanded use on Medicare Select Policies Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Passage: H R 1944 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1944 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 457 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 175 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 175 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
Table motion to reconsider: H RES 175 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 175 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 446 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 1868 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 1868 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 443 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1868 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 441 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1868 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 1868 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 437 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1868 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1868 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1868 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
On Passage: H J RES 79 Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 173 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res 79; Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecation of the Flag Of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 173 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res 79; Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the Flag Of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment, As Amended: Amendment 15 to H R 1868 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1868 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1868 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1868 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1868 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1868 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 170 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1868, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 170 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1868, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Passage: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1854 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1854 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1854 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 5 to H R 1854 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
Permission for Committees to sit: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
on motion to rise: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 405 |
On agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 5 to H R 1854 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
on motion the Committee Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1854 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1854 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Passage: H R 1817 Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1817 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1817 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1817 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1817 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1817 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 392 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 169 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1854; Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 169 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1854; Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 390 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 168 To provide for a Corrections Calendar |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 168 To provide for a Corrections Calendar |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 387 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 167 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1817; Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 167 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1817; Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 385 |
On Passage: H R 1530 Defense Department Authorization, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1530 Defense Department Authorization, FY 1996 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 381 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1530 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 378 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1530 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 376 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1530 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1530 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1530 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 164 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1530, DOD Authorization, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 164 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1530, DOD Authorization, FY 1996 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
On Passage: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1561 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1561 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1561 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 359 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1561 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 156 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 1561; American Overseas Interests Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 535 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 483 Expanded use on Medicare Select Policies Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1561 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1561 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1561 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1561 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1561 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1561 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1561 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 347 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 155 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1561; American Overseas Interests Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 67 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 67; setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 67; setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Passage: H R 961 Clean Water Amendments of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 336 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 961 Clean Water Amendments of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 331 |
Committees to sit today and the balance of the week: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1590 Medicare Trustees reporting on financial imbalance |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 961 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 961 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 12 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 318 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 961 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment, as amended: Amendment 2 to H R 961 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1361 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 655 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 655 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 483 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 300 |
Table appeal of the ruling of the chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 298 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 130 Providing for consideration of H.R, 483; Expanded Use of Medicare Select Policies Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 296 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Passage: H R 1215 Contract With America Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 293 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1215 Contract With America Tax Relief Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1215 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 128 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1215; Contract With America Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 128 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1215; Contract With America Tax Relief Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On agreeing to the Amendments En Bloc: Amendment 2 to H R 1271 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1271 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 121 Waiving points of order against consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 121 Waiving points of order against consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Passage: H J RES 73 Term Limits Constitutional Amendment |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 3 to H J RES 73 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On motion to proceed in order: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 272 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 831 Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Passage: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On agreeing to the Amendments en bloc, as modified: Amendment 2 to H R 4 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Motion That The Committee Rise: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 119 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4; Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
Permission for Committees to sit: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Passage: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1158 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and making Recissions |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1158 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1158 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1158 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 115 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1158; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance and Making Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 115 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Passage: H R 956 Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 228 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 956 Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 956 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 956 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 956 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 956 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 956 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 956 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 956 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 956 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 956 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 109 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 956; Common Sense Product Product Liability Reform Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 109 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 956; Common Sense Product Product Liability Reform Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Passage: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 212 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 211 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1058 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1058 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 209 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1058 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 208 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 105 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1058; Securities Litigation Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 207 |
On Passage: H R 988 Attorney Accountability Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 988 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 988 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 988 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 988 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 200 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 988 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On Passage: H R 9 Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 9 Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Passage: H R 925 Private Property Protection Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 925 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 925 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 194 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 925 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 925 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 925 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 925 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 925 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 101 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 925; Private Property Protection Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 926 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Passage: H R 1022 Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1022 Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1022 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1022 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1022 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1022 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 177 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1022 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1022 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 96 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1022, Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Passage: H R 450 Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 450 Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 450 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 450 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 2 to H R 450 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 93 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 450; Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 830 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 830 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Passage: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 889 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 92 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 889; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 831 Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 831 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 88 Providing for consideration of H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 88 Providing for consideration of H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On Passage: H R 7 National Security Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 7 National Security Revitalization Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 7 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 7 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 141 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 7 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 140 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 7 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 139 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 7 to H R 7 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 7 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On agreeing to the Amendment as modified: Amendment 4 to H R 7 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 7 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 135 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 7 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 134 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 83 Providing for the consideration of H.R.7, National Security Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 83 Providing for the consideration of H.R.7, National Security Revitalization Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
On Passage: H R 728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 128 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On Agreeing to the Committee Substitute as Amended: Amendment 20 to H R 728 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 728 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 728 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 728 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
Committees to Sit during 5 minute Rule for Balance of Week: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On ordering the Previous Question: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 728 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 728 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 117 |
On Passage: H R 667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 116 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 115 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 667 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 114 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 667 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 667 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 667 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 667 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 667 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Passage: H R 729 Effective death penalty act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 729 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 729 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 729 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 105 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 729 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 729 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Passage: H R 666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 666 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 666 |
N | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 99 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 666 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 666 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 96 |
On motion to table the appeal: H RES 57 In regard to the financial assistance plan for Mexico |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Passage: H R 2 Line Item Veto Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2 Line Item Veto Act |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On agreeing to the amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
On Passage: H R 5 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 82 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 60 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 57 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 5 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 73 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 72 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 30 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 29 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 27 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 26 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 25 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 23 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 22 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 20 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 17 to H R 5 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
on agreeing to the amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
Motion to rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
motion to rise: H R 5 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
On motion to Limit Debate: H R 5 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 15 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 14 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Passage: H J RES 1 Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 1 Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 49 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H J RES 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 48 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H J RES 1 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 47 |
Motion to Rise: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H J RES 1 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 45 |
Motion to rise and strike the resolving clause: MOTION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H J RES 1 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 1 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 44 Providing for the consideration of H, Con, Res 17 and H,J, Res. 1; relating to the Balanced Budget Amendment |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 44 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 44 Providing for the consideration of H, Con, Res 17 and H,J, Res. 1; relating to the Balanced Budget Amendment |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 13 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 12 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 33 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
Leave for Committees to Sit for Balance of the Week: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 8 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 7 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 6 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS EN BLOC: Amendment 4 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 3 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 38 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5; UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
striking words from the record: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
TABLE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: MOTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
COMMIT TITLE 2 WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
ON AGREEING TO SEC. 108: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS |
Absent | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 11 |
ON AGREEING TO SEC. 106: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
ON AGREEING TO SEC. 103: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 6 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
ON MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Passage: H R 5110 GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S 455 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to S 455 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 568 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 21 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Passage: H J RES 416 LIMITED AUTHORIZATION OF U.S. TROOPS IN HAITI |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 416 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 416 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 495 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 570 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES 416; LIMITED AUTHORIZATION OF U.S. TROOPS IN HAITI |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 491 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: S 1225 U.S. = MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: S 1919 RIO PUERCO WATERSHED ACT 0F 1994 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4533 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENTREPRENEURIAL MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 488 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: H R 5139 POSTAL SERVICE REEMPLOYMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Passage: H R 5044 AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5044 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5044 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 482 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4533 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENTREPRENEURIAL MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 481 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: S 1919 RIO PUERCO WATERSHED ACT 0F 1994 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 480 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: S 1225 U.S. = MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 967 MINOR CROP PESTICIDES ACT |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
ON MOTION TO TABLE THEMOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
ON MOTION TO TABLE THEMOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
INSIST ON HOUSE AMENDMENTS AND AGREE TO A CONFERENCE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 469 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
MOTION TO COMMIT TO COMMITTEE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 467 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 466 |
ON ORDERING PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE MOTION: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 465 |
MOTION TO TABLE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 463 |
QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR CONFERENCE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 458 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4608 PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 456 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 6 IMPROVING AMERICA?S SCHOOL ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 455 |
MOTION TO RECOMMIT THECONFERENCE REPORT: H R 6 IMPROVING AMERICA?S SCHOOL ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 454 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 556 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6; IMPROVING AMERICAN SCHOOLS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 349 LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 450 |
ON MOTION TO RECOMMIT THE CONFERENCE REPORT: S 349 LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 449 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 550 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 349; LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 445 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3171 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 442 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 5044 AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 440 |
On Passage: H R 4448 ESTABLISHING LOWEL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 439 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4448 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 438 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4554 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 436 |
MOTION TO RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT: H R 4539 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 435 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 537 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT H.R. 4539; TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS, F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Passage: H R 2866 HEADWATERS FOREST ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 432 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2866 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 431 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2866 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 536 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2866; HEADWATERS FOREST ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 536 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2866; HEADWATERS FOREST ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4801 SMALL BUSINESS ACT REAUTHORIZATION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 6 IMPROVING AMERICA?S SCHOOL ACT |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 419 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 87: H R 4624 VA, HUD, AND INDEPENENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE ADT NO. 28 WITHAMENDMENT: H R 4624 VA, HUD, AND INDEPENENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 526 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST A FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3355 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4908 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Passage: H R 3433 MANAGEMENT OF THE PRESIDIO |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 410 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3433 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 409 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3433 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 523 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4603; COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 523 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4603; COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 404 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 2182 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 402 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4906 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4906 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4906 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 398 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4867 HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4907 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4907 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 517 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3355; OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 512 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4907 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4822 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 386 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 514 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4822; THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 384 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 4603 COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE, JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4590 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4590 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4217 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 373 |
On Passage: S 1066 RECOGNITION OF THE POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On Passage: S 1357 LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS & THE LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 371 |
On Passage: H R 4003 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTIONAL REFORM ACT OF 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 370 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4003 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4158 ESTABLISHING THE LOWER EAST SIDE TENEMENT MUSEUM NATIONAL HISTORICAL SITE |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 367 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4448 LOWELL HISTORICAL PARK |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 366 |
PREVIOUS QUESTION ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 4506 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 365 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 494 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4801; SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 364 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 494 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4801; SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S 208 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Passage: H R 2448 RADON AWARENESS AND DISCLOSURE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2448 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 358 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 4649 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
On Passage: H R 518 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
ON MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE: MOTION |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 518 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 353 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3870 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3870 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3838 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Passage: H R 4604 BUDGET CONTROL ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 343 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 1 to H R 4604 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 342 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 484 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4604 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1188 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1188 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 337 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1188 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4299 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 332 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4299 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 474 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3937; EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1994 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 329 |
On Passage: H R 4600 EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4600 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4600 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 467 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4600 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 325 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 518 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Passage: H R 4649 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4649 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4649 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 518 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 316 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 518 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 518 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4624 VA, HUD, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4624 VA, HUD, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4624 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 308 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4624 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4624 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 466 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4649; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 466 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4649; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 303 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4606 LABOR HHS EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4606 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4606 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 297 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4606 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 295 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4606 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4606 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 291 |
On Passage: H R 4603 COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE, JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4603 COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE, JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4603 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 288 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 275 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4603 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 273 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 461 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4603 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 269 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4602 |
Close Vote Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 268 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4602 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4602 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4602 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4602 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4602 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 262 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4602 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 261 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4602 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4602 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 258 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 24 INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 257 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 439 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAIN ST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S.24; INDEPENENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Passage: H R 4554 AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION, FY1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 255 |
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4554 AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION, FY1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4554 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 253 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4556 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 250 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4556 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 454 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4556 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 454 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4556 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Passage: H R 4539 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, PRESIDENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATION FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4539 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, PRESIDENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATION FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 245 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 242 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4539 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 241 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 240 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4539 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 239 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 236 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4539 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 234 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4506 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 7 to H R 518 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 231 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 518 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 447 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4539; TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On Passage: H R 4301 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 225 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4301 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4301 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 223 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4301 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 222 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4301 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 220 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 219 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 218 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Passage: H R 4454 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 215 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4454 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 214 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4454 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 213 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4454 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 210 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 444 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4454; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 206 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4426 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4426 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 203 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 443 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4426; FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION, F.Y.1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 202 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 443 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4426; FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION, F.Y.1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 201 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 441 WAIVING TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN RULE FILED THE SAME DAY |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4301 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 197 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4301 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4301 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4301 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 188 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4301 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4301 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Passage: H R 2108 BLACK LUNG BENEFITS RESTORATION ACT |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2108 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 184 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2108 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2108 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 182 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2108 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 181 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2108 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4301 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 176 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 422 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 518 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 422 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 518 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Passage: H R 2473 MONTANA WILDERNESS ACT |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2473 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2473 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2442 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2442 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 164 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2442 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2442 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2442 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 218 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 418 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 218 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 417 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 636 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Passage: H R 4296 PUBLIC SAFETY AND RECREATION FIREARMS USE PROTECTION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 155 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 416 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4296; PUBLIC SAFETY AND RECREATIONAL FIREARMS USE PROTECTION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3254 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 151 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3254 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 2333 STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Passage: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 143 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4092 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 24 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 137 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 136 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4092 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 123 |
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 122 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 119 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 112 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H CON RES 218 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 111 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 110 |
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 109 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4092 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4092 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 103 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 401 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4092; TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: S 2004 EXTEND COLLEGE LOAN DEFAULT EXEMPTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 101 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 2843 WHEELING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 100 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 3498 GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Passage: H R 6 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT REAUTHORIZATIONS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 94 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 93 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 39 to H R 6 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 89 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 397 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 3345 WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 388 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3345; FEDERAL WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1804 GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 1804 GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 395 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4092; TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 80 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 369 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 369 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 76 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 75 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 6 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 74 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 71 |
INSIST ON AMENDMENTS AND ASK FOR CONFERENCE: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
On Passage: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
COMMIT TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
ON MOTION TO TABLE THE HOUSE AMENDMENT: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 67 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 374 REQUESTING A CONFERENCE ON S. 636; ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 66 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 374 REQUESTING A CONFERENCE ON S. 636; ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 65 |
On Passage: H J RES 103 BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 63 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 103 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 103 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 103 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 57 |
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3345 WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 56 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 218 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 55 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 218 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 54 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 218 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 218 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 384 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 218; SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 46 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 6 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 44 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 43 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 6 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 8 to H R 6 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 37 |
ON MOTION TO TABLE: H RES 238 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 36 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 375 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 35 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 6 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 32 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 30 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 1804 GOALS 200: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 811 INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 811 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 811 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 811 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 352 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811; INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 352 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811; INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3759 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3759 |
Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3759 |
Close Vote Absent | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 8 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3759 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 336 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3759; EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 4 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 312 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3425; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 615 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3167 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION... |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 614 |
AGREEING TO CONFERENCEREPORT: H R 1025 BRADY HANDGUN BILL |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 613 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 714 RTC FUNDING |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 611 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3400 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 610 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3400 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 609 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3400 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 608 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3400 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 607 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 320 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3400; GOVERNMENT REFORM AND SAVINGS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 606 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 322 AGREEING TO THE REQUEST OF THE SENATE FOR A CONFERENCE ON H.R. 1025; BRADY HANDGUN PROTECTION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 605 |
On Passage: H R 3 CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 604 |
On Motion to Recommit: H R 3 CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 603 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 600 |
TABLE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H RES 319 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3; CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993 . |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 599 |
ON AGREEING TO THE RESOLUTION: H RES 319 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3; CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 595 |
On Passage: H R 51 NEW COLUMBIA ADMISSIONS ACT |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 591 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 316 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 51; NEW COLUMBIA ADMISSIONS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 589 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 588 |
TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 587 |
TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 586 |
TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 585 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3351 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 584 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 314 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3351; ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 582 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 796 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT OF 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 581 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 796 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 580 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 796 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 579 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 796 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 578 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 313 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 796; FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 577 |
On Passage: H R 322 MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 576 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 322 MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 575 |
On Passage: H R 3450 NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 571 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 322 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 570 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 322 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 569 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 322 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 568 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 322 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 566 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 2121 NEGOTIATED TRUCKING RATES SETTLEMENTS |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 565 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2401 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 564 |
On Passage: H R 1025 BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 563 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1025 BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 562 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1025 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 560 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1025 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 559 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1025 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 557 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 302 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1025; BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 556 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: H CON RES 170 REMOVAL OF U.S. FORCES FROM SOMALIA |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 555 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: H CON RES 170 REMOVAL OF U.S. FORCES FROM SOMALIA |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 554 |
On Passage: H R 1036 EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 553 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1036 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 552 |
MOTION TO RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT: H R 3167 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM EXTENSION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 551 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 298 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3167 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 544 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3167 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM EXTENSION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 541 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENTS FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 538 |
On Passage: H R 334 RECOGNITION OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 537 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 334 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 536 |
On Passage: H J RES 283 MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 535 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 287 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 283; MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 534 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2492 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 533 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 283 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2492; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 530 |
On Passage: H R 1845 ESTABLISHING THE BIOLOGIAL SURVEY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 529 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1845 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 528 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1845 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 527 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 33, WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2445 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 525 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 123 WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 524 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 12 WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 523 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO.1 WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 522 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 279 RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS REPORTED FROM CONFERENCE IN DISAGREEMENT ON THE BILL H.R. 2520 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 518 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2492 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 517 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2519 COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 515 |
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT #129: H R 2491 VA, HUD APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 512 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 275 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2491; VA HUD APPROPRIATIONS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 508 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3167 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 507 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 265 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167; UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM EXTENSION |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 505 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 273 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 504 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 273 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 503 |
On Passage: H R 2351 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 502 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2351 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 501 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2351 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 500 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2351 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 498 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 264 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2351; NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 497 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 264 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2351; NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 496 |
On Passage: H R 1804 GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 494 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 5 to H R 1804 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 490 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2739 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 489 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2739 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 487 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2739 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 486 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 485 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1845 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 484 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1845 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 483 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 262 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1845; ESTABLISH THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 479 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3116 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 478 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3116 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 477 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3116 |
Absent | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 476 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 475 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 263 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 3116 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 474 |
On Passage: H R 2401 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 473 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2401 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 471 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 470 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 468 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 464 |
On Passage: H J RES 267 CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 462 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 461 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 460 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 459 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 254 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 453 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2750 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 452 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2750 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 451 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2750 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 434 |
On Passage: H R 1340 RTC COMPLETION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 433 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1340 RTC COMPLETION ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 430 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 250 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1340, RTC COMPLETION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 429 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 428 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2401 |
N | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 427 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 426 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 425 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 248 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 424 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 248 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 423 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 422 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 421 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 420 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 418 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 417 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 416 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 415 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 414 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 413 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2401 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 412 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2401 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 411 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 246 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 408 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2010 NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 407 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 241 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2010; NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 406 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 403 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 240 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2264; OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 401 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 233 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 400 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 233 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 397 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2330 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 396 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2330 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 395 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2330 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 394 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2330 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 393 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2330 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 391 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2330 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 389 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 2668 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEMONSTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 383 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2200 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 382 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2200 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 380 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2200 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 379 |
On Passage: H R 2010 NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 377 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2010 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 375 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2010 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 374 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 372 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 369 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2667 DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 368 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 226 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 363 |
ADJOURN FROM FRIDAY TOMONDAY NEXT: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 362 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2200 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 361 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2200 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 360 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2200 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 357 |
ON MOTION TO TABLE: H RES 222 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 356 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 223 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 355 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 220 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667; DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 354 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 220 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667; DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 352 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2010 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 351 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2010 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 350 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2010 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 349 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2010 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 348 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 217 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2010 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 346 |
On Passage: H R 2519 COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 345 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2519 COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 344 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2519 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 341 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2519 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 340 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2519 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 339 |
On Passage: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 338 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2520 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 335 |
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 334 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2520 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 333 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2520 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 330 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2520 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 328 |
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 327 |
PREVIOUS QUESTION ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 326 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2520 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 324 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2520 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 323 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2520 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 322 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 215 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2010; NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 321 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2118 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 320 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 216 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 2118; MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 319 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 216 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 2118; MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 317 |
On Passage: H R 2492 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 315 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2492 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 314 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2492 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 313 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2492 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 312 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2492 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 311 |
On Passage: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 310 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 309 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2518 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 307 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2518 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 306 |
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 305 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2518 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 302 |
On Passage: H R 2493 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 301 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2493 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 299 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2493 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 294 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2493 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 292 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2493 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 290 |
On Passage: H R 2491 VA, HUD APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 289 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2491 VA, HUD APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 287 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 286 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 285 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 284 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 283 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 282 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 281 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2491 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 280 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 279 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 278 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 277 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 276 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2491 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 274 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 208 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 2491: VA, HUD, APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 270 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2445 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 267 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2445 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 266 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2445 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 265 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2445 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 264 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2445 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 263 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2200 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 260 |
On Passage: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 259 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 256 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2403 |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 254 |
ON MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE RISE AND REPORT: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 252 |
On Passage: H R 2333 STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 251 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2333 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 249 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2333 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 248 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2333 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 247 |
On Passage: H R 1876 EXTENSION OF FAST TRACK NEGOTIATION AUTHORITY |
Y | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 246 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2403 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 244 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2403 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 243 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2403 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 238 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2295 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 237 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2295 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 233 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 200 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2295; FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 232 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2333 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 230 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2404 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 229 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2404 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 227 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 4 to H R 2404 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 226 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 197 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2333; STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR FY 1994 AND 1995; AND H.R. 2404; FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 224 |
On Passage: H R 5 CESAR CHAVEZ WORKPLACE FAIRNESS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 221 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 195 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5; CESAR CHAVEZ WORKPLACE FAIRNESS ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 217 |
On Passage: H R 2348 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 216 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2348 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 205 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 192 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2348; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 204 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 192 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2348; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 199 |
On Passage: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 198 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2264 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 196 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 186 PROVIDNG FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2264; OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 195 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 186 PROVIDNG FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2264; OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 193 |
On Passage: H R 2244 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 192 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2244 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 191 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2244 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 190 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS: Amendment 5 to H R 2244 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 189 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS: Amendment 1 to H R 2244 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 187 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2118 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 186 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2118 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 185 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 183 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2244 AND WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 2118 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 183 |
On Passage: S J RES 45 AUTHORIZING U.S. FORCES IN SOMALIA |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 180 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to S J RES 45 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 179 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S J RES 45 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 178 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AUTHORIZATION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 175 |
On Passage: H R 873 GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 174 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 873 GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 173 |
On Passage: H R 820 NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 172 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 820 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 171 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 820 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 170 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 169 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 168 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 167 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 166 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 165 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 163 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 162 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 161 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 160 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 159 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 158 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 873 GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 157 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 156 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 820 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 154 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 153 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 152 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 163 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2; NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 149 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1578 EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 148 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1578 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 147 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1578 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 146 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED: Amendment 1 to H R 1578 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 145 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1578 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 144 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 149 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1578; EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 142 |
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT: H R 1335 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 138 |
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 326 WASHINGTON BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL MONUMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 133 |
On Passage: H R 1430 TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 132 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1430 TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 131 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 147 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1430, TO PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 130 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 147 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1430, TO PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 129 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 127 |
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 126 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 145 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 64; THE BUDGET RESOLUTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 125 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 145 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 64; THE BUDGET RESOLUTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 124 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 142 WAIVING REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A RESOLUTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 121 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 107 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION FOR 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 120 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 107 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION FOR 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 113 |
ON MOTION TO ADJOURN: ADJOURN |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 108 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 107 |
On Passage: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 106 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 104 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 670 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 102 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 670 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 98 |
ON MOTION TO RISE: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 97 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 670 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 95 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 670 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 92 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H RES 138 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 670; FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 91 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 138 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 670; FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 90 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 138 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 670; FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 88 |
On Passage: H R 1335 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 87 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1335 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 1993 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 86 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 132 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1335, DIRE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1993 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 85 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 84 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 64 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 83 |
STRIKE THE RESOLVING CLAUSE: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 81 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 79 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H RES 133 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 64, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 78 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 133 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 64, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 77 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 133 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 64, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 70 |
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: S 1 NIH REAUTHORIZATION |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 69 |
On Passage: H R 4 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 68 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 64 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4 |
Absent | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 62 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 61 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 60 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 59 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 119 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 58 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 119 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 53 |
AGREE TO SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 6 OF SENATE AMENDMENT: H R 920 EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 51 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 106 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 20; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 50 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 106 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 20; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 42 |
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS AS AMENDED: H R 20 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT OF 1993 |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 41 |
On Passage: H R 920 EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 40 |
RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 920 EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 39 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 103 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL H.R. 920; EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 38 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 103 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL H.R. 920; EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 34 |
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H CON RES 39 PROVIDING FOR A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS TO RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 29 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 71 RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 28 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 71 RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 27 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 61 WAIVING A REQUIRMENT OF CLAUSE 4(B) OF RULE XI TO CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN RESOLUTION REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 26 |
On Passage: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 25 |
RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 24 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 59 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2; NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 23 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 59 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2; NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 22 |
On Passage: H R 1 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 21 |
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 20 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 19 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 18 |
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 4 to H R 1 |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 17 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1 |
N | N | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 16 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 15 |
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1 |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 14 |
TABLE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: MOTION |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 13 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 58 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1; FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 12 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 58 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1; FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 10 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 20 TO ESTABLISH THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL |
Y | Y | Lost | ||||
Roll Call 9 |
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 20 TO ESTABLISH THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 7 |
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 6 |
ON MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE |
N | N | Won | ||||
Roll Call 5 |
ON ORDERING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Roll Call 3 |
TABLE MOTION TO REFER: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE |
Y | Y | Won | ||||
Total Overall: 10437, Progressive Overall Votes: 10090 | ||||||||
Total Crucial: 4311, Progressive Crucial Votes: 4103 | ||||||||
Year: | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | |||||||
Classified?: |
Yes
|
No
|
All
We have several years of detailed vote descriptions that are included in this site. Clicking on "Classified" in a year that contains these narrative descriptions will show only the votes which were written up and assigned to fourteen Issue Categories. We haven't had the bandwidth to do this in recent years. Classified votes are subject to the same algorithms as all other votes. |
|||||||
Crucial?: | Yes | No | All |